The Assembly met at 12 noon (Speaker [Mr Newton] in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes' silence.

Assembly Business

Mr Speaker: Before we start today's business, I welcome the new Clerk/Chief Executive, Mrs Lesley Hogg, on her first day at the Assembly.  I also put on record the sympathies of the House to the family of Lord Mayhew, who served here as Secretary of State during a difficult time.

Private Members' Business

United Kingdom Withdrawal from the European Union

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to three hours for this debate.  The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to wind.  All others will have five minutes.

Mike Nesbitt: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes the result of the referendum on European Union membership; and calls on the Executive to set out, in the immediate future, their response to the consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for allowing the motion.  It is right that the first item of business in this Chamber since the referendum should be a discussion of the implications and consequences of what happened at the tail end of last week.
I note that Sam McBride, in the 'News Letter', leant on the words of W B Yeats to sum it up.  Everything is "changed, changed utterly".  I am not sure that that is right because I believe that what has actually happened is that we have entered an era of uncertainty, an uncertainty that will last years, not months.
There is only one certainty, and that is the result.  The result is the result.  Be in no doubt.  We asked the people of the United Kingdom for their view, and the people of the United Kingdom gave us their view.  It was to leave the European Union.  The Ulster Unionist Party accepts that result.
The result is the result.  There is no point in trying to say that it was a non-binding referendum and that Parliament is sovereign.  Given the low esteem that many of us as elected politicians here and in other Chambers are held in by the people of the United Kingdom, the last thing we should do is say, "Tell us what you want us to do" and then ignore it and do what we want to do.  No:  the result is the result.  We are on our way out of the European Union.
We have to accept that, but I believe that we should also acknowledge that, within Northern Ireland, 56% of the people who voted voted to remain in the United Kingdom.  We must acknowledge that.  The first question to the First Ministers is:  how do they factor that in to how they will deal with the consequences of the referendum?

Barry McElduff: Will the Member give way just briefly?

Mike Nesbitt: I may give way later, but I have a lot of progress to make.
David Cameron, as Prime Minister of all the people of the United Kingdom, asked for a "Remain" vote, did not get it and has indicated his intention to resign.  Nicola Sturgeon, as First Minister of all the people of Scotland, asked for a "Remain" vote in Scotland, got it and, therefore, has a clear mandate to take to the negotiations that will involve the UK Government and the devolved institutions.  Arlene Foster, as First Minister of Northern Ireland, asked for a Brexit vote and did not get it within Northern Ireland, so there is, I believe, a legitimate question to ask of the First Minister.

Paul Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mike Nesbitt: I said that I may give way later.
There is a legitimate question to ask of the First Minister when she goes into those negotiations.  How does she balance her party political view for Brexit against the fact that 56% of the people who voted in Northern Ireland said, "Let us remain within the European Union"?  I look forward to the First Minister's response to that.
This, however, is not about going over the result:  the result is the result.  It is about the implications and consequences of the result for the people of Northern Ireland.  There are huge consequences, and perhaps some unintended ones.  The first consequence for us is that we look to London and recognise the fact that, of the two parties that are capable of governing in Downing Street, neither has a leader with credibility any more.  The Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, has indicated, as I said, his intention to stand down.  I believe that, this morning, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, Tom Watson, went to his leader, Jeremy Corbyn, and told him to stand down as leader of the Labour Party.  We find ourselves with a certain political crisis.

Trevor Clarke: I thank the Member for giving way.  Maybe you can tell us when you are going to remove the whip from Tom Elliott.

Mike Nesbitt: The Member misunderstands the position of the Ulster Unionist Party, which I will come to during the course —
[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker, I was hoping that, after such a divisive campaign and with the eyes of Northern Ireland, perhaps of the world, on the Chamber this morning, we would have a thoughtful and respectful debate.  I hope that we can still do that because —

Christopher Stalford: Will the Member give way?

Mike Nesbitt: I will not give way.
What are the implications and consequences?  Let us start with the finances.  Nobody is in any doubt that Northern Ireland, currently and for some time, has been a net beneficiary of European funding, not just for agriculture but for our voluntary and community sector, our universities —

Jim Allister: Will the Member give way?

Mike Nesbitt: No, I will not give way.

Jim Allister: Peddling falsehoods.
[Interruption.]

Mike Nesbitt: Mr Speaker, I ask you to reflect —

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to take his seat.
This debate, obviously, will have a fair amount of emotion from all sides of the House.  I ask Members to be respectful to each other.  That includes how they address each other and the titles they apply to Members.  When it is quite clear that a Member is not going to take an intervention, I ask that that be respected by the Member seeking the intervention.

Mike Nesbitt: Mr Speaker, I ask you to reflect on the comments from Mr Allister who, I believe, accused me of "peddling falsehoods".  I ask you to reflect on that and come back to us when you are ready.
It is not just about the Peace funds; we all agree that we have done well from them.  It is about the competitive drawdown, the common agricultural policy, the single farm payment, universities and the community and voluntary sector.  It is about our infrastructure, and we all agree that, to have a vibrant economy, we need to invest in that.  I believe that I saw our Minister, Chris Hazzard, out in Brussels a few days ago, discussing the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T), which we did very well with when my colleague Danny Kennedy was Minister for Regional Development.  In the last Programme for Government, for the first time, we had a target for the competitive drawdown of European funds, and we matched it easily.  I would have hoped that we were going to be much more competitive and ambitious in the next Programme for Government, but can we even compete for infrastructure funds?  Over the remaining years, when the withdrawal is being negotiated, why would the European Union give us money for infrastructure projects that would benefit the United Kingdom for the next five, 10, 15 or 20 years?  What about corporation tax — the big idea?  What happens to corporation tax now?  Is there an opportunity here to get it without a hit to the block grant, or has it gone for good?  This is the sort of clarity that we seek from our First Ministers.
The Ulster Unionist position has been very clear —

Christopher Stalford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.  A previous statement from the Chair advised all Members that they should, at all times, refer to other Members by their correct and proper title.  Do you judge it outwith that recommendation for the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party to use the term "First Ministers"?  There is a First Minister and a deputy First Minister.

Mr Speaker: I have already addressed the point of referring to people by their correct title.

Mike Nesbitt: The Ulster Unionist position was that, on balance, Northern Ireland is better off in the European Union — not the United Kingdom, but Northern Ireland — with a UK Government arguing for further reform and a move back to free trade and away from political union.  That is still our position.
On the money issue, when we discussed it as an executive, I took my pen and said, "If anybody in the room is prepared to take this pen and write a blank cheque that guarantees that Northern Ireland will not be one penny worse off in the event of Brexit, I will vote for Brexit."  Nobody took that pen.  I now ask whether the First Minister and the deputy First Minister will take that pen and guarantee our agriculture sector, universities, voluntary and community sector and everybody else who benefits from European Union money that they will not be a penny worse off.  I will leave the pen there for a blank cheque to be signed.
What about the Barnett formula?  What is the next —

Lord Morrow: Will the Member give way?

Mike Nesbitt: I am not giving way.  I have made the point now.
What about the Barnett formula?  We know that some Brexiteers, such as Lord Owen, have made the point that the Barnett formula should go.  What are the implications for Northern Ireland?
Then there is the border.  Were we misinformed about the border and the common travel area?  I notice that the Taoiseach has said that he will do his "best" to maintain the common travel arrangements; not that he guarantees that they will stay but that he will do his "best".  What is the plan in the Executive Office for the border and immigration?  What about the future of the United Kingdom?  I heard Members say that there is no way that Scotland will press for another vote on independence.  I heard Members say that it will not happen because the price of oil has plummeted and Scotland cannot afford it.  I said that I did not want my fingerprints on the button that Nicola Sturgeon will press to secure a second referendum.  My fingerprints are not on that button, but the fingerprints of the leader of the DUP are, and she will press it.
What is the future for Northern Ireland as nationalism reacts with anger to the fact that those outwith this part of the United Kingdom have voted for Brexit?  I love the United Kingdom.  I remain convinced that we, in Northern Ireland, are all better off as part of the United Kingdom.  I want an assurance from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister that they will work tirelessly to persuade the people that we are still better off in the United Kingdom, even in the event of this Brexit.

Mr Speaker: Will the Member conclude his remarks?

Mike Nesbitt: There is a lot to answer.  The final question to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister is this:  why is there no contingency plan to deal with this calamity?

Christopher Stalford: What happened over the weekend was an exercise in democracy.  The people of the United Kingdom, from every corner of the United Kingdom, were, for the first time in 40 years, given their chance to have their say on the continuation of our country's membership of the European Union.
I think it is fair to look at the opposing sides in this campaign.  On one side was Goldman Sachs, big business, the EU, the IMF and the political establishment of this country.  They were convinced that it was in the bag, convinced that the case for staying in the European Union was so self-evident that no person could ever dare to vote against it.  Well, they got their answer on Friday morning.  The ordinary people of this country, who for years have been sneered at and ignored by the political and media establishment of this country, their values held in contempt and simple things like love of country held up as foolishness, had their say.
I knew that it would be an uphill climb in my own constituency, and I said that I would be pleased if we got above 28% for "Leave".  In the end, we got 30.5%, and I knew when I saw the record turnouts in places like Donegall Pass; Sandy Row; the Donegall Road; the Woodstock Road — even in the Braniel, where I live — that ordinary people, who do not come out and vote at election time, were fired-up to come out and vote in this referendum, because they were fed up with being ignored by the media and political elite; fed up with being treated with contempt.
Since the result was announced, I have heard some of the worst denigration of our older population.  It is disgraceful to hear people say that older people should not have the vote, or that they have betrayed the future of the young.  It is because of the effort of the older people of this country that the young have a future to look forward to and to treat them with such contempt is disgraceful.
I enjoyed the campaign.  The "Leave" campaign in Northern Ireland attracted —

Stewart Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Christopher Stalford: No.  I will give way later.
It was a cross-section of people drawn from my own party, the TUV and UKIP, and, I am delighted to say, a good many Ulster Unionist Members were out with us, making the case for leaving the European Union.
We have heard that this is a time for seriousness.  Well, seriousness requires that we have discussion and reasoned argument in the Chamber; we do not run off to 'The Irish News' saying that the Union is under threat, because we were on the losing side of the referendum, as some have chosen to do.  The reality is that the people of this country were offered a choice, and they made their choice.  I say this to those who were on the opposing side:  had the vote gone the other way, I would have had to take it on the chin and move on.  I know what it is like to lose an election, and I know what it is like to be on the losing side of a referendum.  Those who just assumed that the people would do as they were told should accept the verdict of the people.
Over the last 48 hours, we have heard all sorts of crazy and interesting ideas on how the people's verdict can be overturned.  We had a Labour MP saying that Parliament should simply ignore it because it was only an advisory and non-binding referendum, and I have no doubt that we will hear some of that today.

Mr Speaker: Will the Member conclude his remarks?

Christopher Stalford: To go down that road and ignore the democratic verdict of the people of this United Kingdom would be a grave mistake.

Conor Murphy: I am very pleased to get the chance to speak in this debate.  There is quite a lot of political difference already on the issues that were debated and the outcome of the referendum.  One thing that does unify us is that we are left with an impending mess as a consequence of the vote that was taken last Thursday.
It is the responsibility of all of us to try to navigate our way out of the mess we find ourselves in.  Whether one accepts the result of the referendum or not, had the vote been to remain in Europe we would not face the huge degree of uncertainty and potential difficulty that we now face.  Regardless of whether people wanted to leave or stay, we are now presented with a serious political, economic and social difficulty that we have to chart our way through.  There is no clarity from those who led the "Leave" campaign or, indeed, the British Government on how we will navigate our way through this political upheaval.
At a local level — I was involved in the campaign in my constituency — constituents are angry and bewildered.  They are angry that their future and their children's future will be decided not by themselves but by people living on a neighbouring island.  That democratic deficit and lack of self-determination is clearly another story that we will return to.
In my area, Newry and Dundalk were two busy ports and market towns located centrally on the east coast of Ireland with a shared hinterland pre partition.  Their economic potential was sundered by partition and surrendered for the best part of 70 years.  It was only with the advent of the single market and with specific European funds designed to remove the hard border and deal with the negative impact of partition — funds like INTERREG, Peace, the European social fund and some of the rural development programmes — that communities in that border area began to recover and look forward with some optimism to a better economic future, having been on the periphery of two states for so long.  They are fearful now and somewhat bewildered about their future.
We have a responsibility collectively, regardless of our position in the referendum campaign or of how we see its outcome and in the absence of any sense of direction from London, to chart the best course for the people we represent to give clarity and some direction.  That involves not just the Executive — obviously, the Executive have a key role in that, and I look forward to hearing from the First Minister later and, no doubt, other Ministers as the days and weeks progress — but the Opposition and all of us, because we have a collective responsibility in this institution. In the absence of any sense of clarity and direction elsewhere, the people of the Six Counties certainly and those across Ireland are looking for some direction here and, indeed, in Dublin.
We also have a responsibility to engage with the Irish Government on this.  They will obviously be key players in negotiating matters relating Europe on this island, and the decision undoubtedly has a negative economic impact on them.  Given the nature of our institutional arrangements, we have to ensure that we have a close working relationship with the Irish Government and, indeed, with Scotland, who find themselves in the same position as us, having decided in their jurisdiction to remain but now finding that they will, against their wishes, be out of the European Union in the near future. We specifically have a responsibility to engage with the sectors that will be most concerned: the business sector, the community and voluntary sector, farming, trade unions and other people across society who were heavily reliant on the European Union and some of the funds that it provided in their own businesses.
The clear majority in our vote in the Six Counties to remain gives us a strong hand in the negotiations that lie ahead.  The British Government will be involved in those negotiations, we need to be involved in them and the Irish Government need to be involved.  We have specifically expressed our wishes on this, and that gives us a strong hand with the British Government attempting to ride roughshod over the impacts of this on the people we represent.
We need a common purpose.  Let us have the debate. People can argue the toss about which side they were on and the outcome, but, when the dust settles, we need a common purpose. We need to row in behind our Executive and act collectively with all the political parties here, with our friends south of the border, with friends in Scotland and, particularly, with friends in Europe to get the best possible outcome from this for the people we represent.

Colum Eastwood: I hope that some of the comments we have heard from sedentary positions are not a sign of how this debate will develop, and I do not just mean the debate in here. Everybody in here who calls themselves a democrat should recognise that people here in the North of Ireland voted for our position within the European Union to remain the same.  People in Scotland did that as well.  Young people everywhere formed a coalition to have a positive relationship with the European Union.  People here in particular, in Northern Ireland, understand the benefits that that has given us.
I spoke to a great number of people on Friday in my constituency, which is surrounded on three sides by a border, who were devastated, scared and extremely worried about what comes next.  You see posters all round Northern Ireland — I have to drive past a load of them coming here in the morning — telling you that there will be £350 million more for the health service and all that stuff, but, of course, the "Leave" side is now rowing back on those great commitments about the health service, immigration and all the other plans that it made to —

Jonathan Bell: I thank the Member for giving way.  Is the "Remain" side rowing back on the third world war?

Colum Eastwood: First, I do not know what you are talking about. I made a commitment to speak positively about the European Union throughout the campaign, and I think that we did. We know the benefits of it.  The "Leave" campaign, however, is now rowing back on all its big claims.  We told them the whole way through the campaign that that would happen.  The notion that you will have access to the single market while controlling immigration is utter nonsense.  It is nonsense, and it is proven to be nonsense in places such as Norway and Switzerland.  There were a lot of lies told, but people in Northern Ireland saw through them. As democrats, we are standing by the people here who decided that we are not being dragged out of the European Union by the right wing of the Tory party or anybody else who does not want to listen when told about the benefits of the European Union.

Jim Allister: Will the Member give way?

Colum Eastwood: Yes.

Jim Allister: The Member says that he is not going to be dragged out of the European Union.  I do not know what the question was on the ballot paper that he used, but on the ballot paper that I used the question was clear: do I want the United Kingdom to leave or to stay? The question was never "Do you want Northern Ireland to stay?".  The only autonomous answer is the answer that came from the entirety of the people of the United Kingdom.  Is he going to accept that, or is he not?

Colum Eastwood: "No" is the answer, because I stand by people —
[Laughter.]
I stand by people on this island —
[Interruption.]
You see?  Gracious in victory as usual.  I stand by people on this island and in this country who do not want to leave the European Union.  One minute we are told that Northern Ireland is a nation, and then the UK is a nation: I am not sure what people are trying to tell us, but people in Northern Ireland —

Paul Frew: Will the Member give way?

Colum Eastwood: No, I have given way enough.
People in Northern Ireland told us that they wanted to remain in the European Union, and we will look for every device possible to make sure that that happens, and I hope that others join us in doing so.

Jim Allister: Deny democracy.

Colum Eastwood: I know all about democracy, and some people in here need to learn about democracy. I remember a referendum that was held on this island not all that long ago, where people voted for the Good Friday Agreement.  The Member who is shouting from his seat and some of the Members across the Chamber who were shouting from their seats earlier did not recognise that the people of this island voted for the Good Friday Agreement. What did the Good Friday Agreement mean?  It meant that people from my persuasion who wanted to see a united Ireland were able to democratically argue for and democratically work towards that goal.  We all accepted that the principle of consent was key to that.  Let me tell you this, Mr Speaker: the people of the North of Ireland are not giving their consent to being dragged out of the European Union, and we stand by them on that.
Let me just deal with the point that the Secretary of State made about the principle of consent and the Good Friday Agreement.  I do not think that this is the right time for a border poll, because I believe that we should have a border poll that we can actually win. Our duty today —
[Interruption.]
Do you not want to hear?  No? Our duty today is to deal with the issues that face us right now.  The Secretary of State has got it wrong: just because people on the nationalist side say that they agree with the principle of consent and the Good Friday Agreement, that does not mean that they give consent to our position within the United Kingdom. We will continue to democratically work towards changing that.
Right now, we are not about to be dragged out of the European Union against our will.  I would love to hear the DUP explain to me today how it will enforce a border on this island and how it will control the freedom of movement of people into the British Isles.  How will you do that?  I do not think that you can, and I think that you have voted for something that you have not really thought through.
Look at what is happening in Scotland and here; people are beginning to see that the next step is further integration across this island, working —

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Colum Eastwood: — together with our unionist neighbours to begin the process of working in the European context and delivering for our people here, not being dragged out against our will by Sunderland, Surrey or anywhere else.

Mr Speaker: I ask that Members be listened to with respect and that they be allowed to make their arguments across the Chamber.  I also ask that Members, when speaking, address all their remarks through the Chair.

Naomi Long: We need to acknowledge that the vote across the UK was to leave the European Union.  For me, that is a regrettable decision, but I acknowledge and accept it.  It means that the UK will now begin a process of negotiation that will fundamentally change not just our relationship with the EU but the EU itself and, potentially, our relationships in the United Kingdom.  To do otherwise would leave an electorate that was already clearly angry and disaffected even more angry and disaffected.
It is true that Parliament has primacy on these matters; it is also true that referendums are merely advisory.  However, no Government should ever go to the people, ask their view on a matter and then simply ignore the view that they are given by the people.  That does not mean that, in future, when the new arrangements are made and are in place, it would not be equally appropriate for any Government to ask the people whether they are happy with the new arrangements, but, as we stand today, that is where we are.
We have to acknowledge — the "Leave" campaign needs to acknowledge this — the sharp divide that has opened up between England and Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland on the issue.  There has to be some reflection of the clearly expressed wish of the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland to remain at the heart of the European Union.  That must be reflected in any arrangements negotiated by the Government for the future.  To ignore that, and to fail to seek an accommodation of those views, is to place the future of the United Kingdom in peril.  I am surprised at the rather blasé approach that some unionists are taking to that risk, given that they are those most invested in retaining the United Kingdom.
I have no intentions —

William Humphrey: Will the Member give way?

Naomi Long: I will not give way.
I have no intentions of taking lectures from the party opposite on how to accept losing or, indeed, winning elections and votes with any measure of good grace.  Whether it be the Good Friday Agreement, a democratic decision on flags on City Hall, or many others that would take too long to list, that party does not have a good record when it comes to good grace in democratic decision-making.
I do not want to reopen a referendum debate today.  We have, in the context of a very close and divisive result, to look at how we now provide the sort of leadership that will get us to a place of stability.  The continuing instability is a threat to our economy, to social cohesion in this society, and to our future as a regional economy in Europe whilst clearly potentially being no longer in the EU.  Each of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom now has special arrangements and relationships with the Westminster Parliament, and the EU will be irrevocably changed by the departure of the UK.  In that context, everything is open for discussion.  Therefore, acknowledging in any agreements the clear votes to remain in the EU from Scotland and Northern Ireland is not beyond the capacity of a strong and coherent negotiating team.  My question to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister is clear:  can they provide that coherent negotiating team on behalf of Northern Ireland, given that the majority of people here wished to remain whilst the position of the First Minister's party was that it wished to leave?  That is a genuine question that I place before them and ask them to consider today.
We need to reassure business and people in Northern Ireland about the future and maximise certainty.  That reassurance is not coming from Westminster, which has now dissolved into the chaos that we were told was scaremongering but is now the news.  I ask that we see strong leadership in Northern Ireland, not just for business or for the people in Northern Ireland but for those EU members —

Christopher Stalford: I am grateful to the Member for giving way.  I do not recall, at any point during the referendum campaign, those who argued for "Remain" telling us that we should stay in for fear that David Cameron might resign or that Jeremy Corbyn would be subject to a coup.  You referenced the trouble at Westminster; those are entirely internal party political matters for the Tories and Labour.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Naomi Long: Let us be honest; the referendum was entirely an internal party political matter for the Conservative Party.  We all knew that when we voted; we knew that that was what it was about.  Frankly, those who argued that it was about any higher principle need their heads examined.  If we are being honest, the reassurance that I want today is for EU nationals and, indeed, other migrants who live and work in our communities and who make a contribution to society, because they feel vulnerable and afraid after this vote.  I want reassurance for them that they are still welcome and that we are still an open and tolerant democracy —

Mr Speaker: Will the Member conclude her remarks?

Naomi Long: — and that they have a place in our future.

Edwin Poots: I find it ironic that the proposer of the motion is none other than Mr Nesbitt, particularly after reading today's newspaper and his comments about people considering their positions.  Mr Cameron called a referendum and Mr Cameron lost that referendum in spite of throwing everything, including the kitchen sink of Downing Street, at it.  There were many inaccurate and untrue statements which the public, wisely, chose to ignore.  By Mr Nesbitt's logic, Carwyn Jones should also resign, but he did not mention that this morning.  Indeed, in his own Strangford constituency, 5,000 more people voted to leave than to remain.  So, by his own logic, he has lost his own constituency and he should resign.
We go back to the principle of the standing of our First Minister.  Our First Minister went to the country just over a month ago and received a vote of 207,000, which was an increased mandate.  Mr Nesbitt went to the country and received 87,000 votes, which was a decreased mandate.  Mr Nesbitt managed to take the leadership of the Ulster Unionist Party when it was at rock bottom and take it down further.  He has been grovelling about —

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to come back to the motion.

Edwin Poots: It is to do with the challenge by Mr Nesbitt to the First Minister.  Nonetheless, he has been grovelling about on his stomach in the dust and now wants to spit it out at us this morning, having failed, and failed miserably.  People had a reason for voting not to stay in Europe.  Indeed, most of the former leaders of the Ulster Unionist Party voted not to stay in the European Union, including past leaders Tom Elliot and David Trimble.  Mr Nesbitt does not command the support of his own party.

Danny Kennedy: Will the Member give way?

Edwin Poots: Yes, certainly.

Danny Kennedy: Will the Member confirm that he is now completely reconciled with Lord Trimble?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Edwin Poots: Thank you for giving me the extra minute — I will give way again if you let us know how you voted, Mr Kennedy.
[Laughter.]

Gordon Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Edwin Poots: Yes.

Gordon Lyons: Does it worry the Member or his party that Mike Nesbitt seems to be suggesting, because there is the threat of a Scottish independence referendum for the second time, that unionism should act in a different way?  Surely, that is nationalism dictating to unionism.  Does that not show that the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party is better suited to the role of a commentator than to the role of leader?

Edwin Poots: It is for the people to decide on what role he has.  I think that the people decided very convincingly at the Assembly election, but he decided to cling on to his position and become leader of the Opposition as a result.  Ironically, there were all these people who were saying that we would break up the Union if we voted "Leave", but the nationalists in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all wanted to vote "Remain".  The unionists who joined them — the Ulster Unionists — joined the nationalists and, indeed, the republicans to say vote "Remain", when clearly the people voted for something different.
In Northern Ireland, the DUP lifted 207,000 votes at the Assembly election and 350,000 people voted to leave the European Union.  Quite clearly, many Ulster Unionists walked away from the guidance and leadership of Mr Nesbitt to back the leadership of the DUP.  If any leader is considering their position today in this Chamber, it is the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, who has been exposed and found wanting.  He failed miserably in the Assembly election, and he has failed to provide good, solid leadership to the people of the Ulster Unionist Party over the course of this referendum.

Colum Eastwood: Will the Member give way?

Edwin Poots: Yes, I will give way.

Colum Eastwood: In the little time he has left, will the Member take some time to address the concerns of people in my constituency, in border constituencies and in every other constituency across Northern Ireland today?  All I am hearing is an internal unionist argument.

Edwin Poots: Fair enough; you are hearing an internal unionist argument.  I will complete that before I touch on what you had to say.  We are a one-nation United Kingdom and that one nation has made a decision.  It is for Parliament — our sovereign Parliament at Westminster — to enact the democratically expressed will of the people of this United Kingdom.  If we split Scotland, as some people want to suggest, are we going to split Northern Ireland as well?  It was very evident that many constituencies in Northern Ireland voted to leave.  This nation will be staying together and Nicola Sturgeon will fail in what she is doing.
Things such as the border issues need to be discussed, and we will work very closely with the Republic of Ireland Government to ensure that there is as little change as possible as a result of this decision and that people will be able to enjoy all the benefits.

Mr Speaker: The Member should conclude his remarks.

Edwin Poots: We need to divest ourselves of the regulations that Europe has imposed on us.  That will give business and farmers and many other people great opportunities to move forward, deal with the rest of the world and take this challenge on in a very positive way.

John O'Dowd: Whatever else the United Kingdom is, it is not united, either in its desires for the future of the nations that make up that current United Kingdom or around socio-economic policies, race policies or anything else.  The recent referendum debate in Britain has shown the rifts in society there and here, so the term "united" does not fit this debate.
I know that Members on the opposite Benches and those beside them traditionally refer to the term "United Kingdom", but let not anyone in the Chamber believe that there is any unity of purpose as a result of the referendum decision made last week.  No matter how you look at this group of islands, they are divided like they have never been divided before.  We have to recognise that the EU referendum result is the biggest single social and economic shock to hit the island of Ireland since partition.  Regardless of where your allegiances lie, whether they lie with the Union or, as mine and those of my party colleagues do, with the reunification of Ireland, we have to deal with it.
The motion:
"calls on the Executive to set out, in the immediate future, their response to the consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union."
The Executive's hands are somewhat tied on this, because they will not be able to work out a response until the Conservative Party sorts out its internal squabbles, appoints a leader and a Prime Minister and, as is quite likely, a Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the very near future.  The Executive and the First and deputy First Minister are somewhat constrained in what they can do, but I have no doubt that, despite their differences on this and numerous other issues, they will work to do their very best for this society.
They will do their very best for this economy.  They will do their very best for the people whom they represent here in the North.

Stewart Dickson: Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd: As my colleague Mr Murphy said, there is also a responsibility on the opposition to work positively in tandem to ensure that outcome.  I will give way.

Stewart Dickson: I am interested in the Member telling us that the First and deputy First Minister will work together on this.  Is the reality not that they are as disunited on this subject as the disunited kingdom is today on the whole issue?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

John O'Dowd: I do not think that it will cause newsflashes around the world that Martin McGuinness is an Irish republican and Arlene Foster is a unionist.  They are disunited on that, but they have shown that they can put their differences aside and work for the betterment of society.  That is what is required now.

Christopher Stalford: Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd: I will, if I can, in one moment.  What is required now is leadership.
I return to the referendum and the uncertainties that it has thrown up to us.  There is always certainty in uncertainty.  We can now be certain that the £350 million a week that was promised to the health service is not going to the health service.  Some of those who opposed EU membership were opposed to immigration.  We can be certain that emigration and immigration will continue.  We will not be able to stop immigration.  Negotiations will have to take to place with the European Union.  If they want to trade into the European Union, they will have to do what other nations on the European continent are doing, and the free movement of people is part of that.  Why is the free movement of people part of that?  It is because, despite the fears that were promoted by some in the "Leave" campaign, immigration is actually good for the economy.
I want to turn to our brothers and sisters from European states and those from other ethnic minorities who already live here.  I would hope to send out a very unified message from the Assembly that their contribution to our economy is welcomed.  Their continued contribution to our economy is absolutely necessary, and we, as an Assembly, an Executive and political leaders, defend their right to be here and welcome them here with open arms.
In conclusion, the time ahead will be very difficult because the principle of trickle-down economics, which many in the House — I am one of them — argue does not work in the method that it should work and does not deliver for those at the bottom of the stream, works in quite a different way.  The losses that were seen on the stock markets across the globe on Friday will have a trickle-down impact.  Who will pay for those losses?  It will not be big business; we learned that from the last recession.  It will not be any of the big businesses, whichever side of the argument they were on last week.  It will be the ordinary person on the street who will pay for those big losses on the stock market last week.  Our Budget and economy will be impacted, which is why it is vital that the First and deputy First Minister work together.  I am confident that they will.  I hope that I can be confident that the Opposition will work with them.

Emma Pengelly: I welcome the vote of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union project.  Over the last number of days, including today in the Chamber, I have listened to and read of the hysteria of those in the "Remain" camp.  First, let me be clear:  we all knew the terms of this referendum.  We voted individually as citizens of the United Kingdom on the position of the United Kingdom.  Those were the terms accepted by all sides, including the "Remain" side.  It is fundamentally dishonest for some in the "Remain" camp to attempt to change the parameters retrospectively when the result did not go their way.
Secondly, it is offensive and unacceptable that there are those in the "Remain" camp, particularly elected representatives, in Northern Ireland who try to portray those "Leave" voters as racist, stupid, uninformed, misinformed or uneducated.  This is an issue of respect about the outcome.  Today, we have already heard a patronising view towards those who voted "Leave".  They may not be the commentators, the journalists, the Establishment or the left-wing liberals who dominate the public narrative, but there is a clear message:  the so-called little people have spoken.  The oft-silent majority across the United Kingdom have made their feelings clear.
The mouse has roared and become the lion, and millions of decent, upstanding people have all the lefty liberals in a spin.  The reality is that Europe had become too detached and too unaccountable, yet, in that context, there was an ever-growing agenda of increased scope and remit. 
There is an irony about the position of Mike Nesbitt.  He criticises others when he represents neither the view of unionism in Northern Ireland nor, we suspect, even the views of the Ulster Unionist Party.
I know that my party leader, the First Minister of this country, will fight her hardest for the best deal for Northern Ireland, the best deal for farmers, the best deal for the economy and the best deal for our public services and all in Northern Ireland.

Steve Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Emma Pengelly: Yes.

Steve Aiken: Thank you very much for those comments.  I apologise for coming late to the debate.  Many representatives of unionism and many of my constituents who voted "Remain" have communicated with me how concerned they are with what has been going on.  It is not just a question of unionism in one place —

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to come to a question.

Steve Aiken: — it is all of unionism.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Emma Pengelly: Thank you, Mr Speaker.  I stand here today to give assurances to the people of Northern Ireland — I know that other Members will do so as well — that the First Minister will fight for the best deal for Northern Ireland in the renegotiations.  She will roll up her sleeves and fight fearlessly for all in Northern Ireland, including those who decided to vote "Remain" and those who decided to vote "Leave", and I want people to be reassured of that today.
This is a new dawn for the United Kingdom.  There is of course much work to be done and much negotiation, but there is also much opportunity.  Today, as I stand here, I am still a European.  People need not to listen to the hysteria but to buckle down and look at the opportunities that this provides for us.
We stand here today free to negotiate and build a new and recalibrated relationship on the world stage, including with the European Union, and a better deal for an independent and sovereign United Kingdom on the world stage.
Our message today is one of hope, not despair.  People need to keep calm and listen to what is being said.  Do not listen to the hysteria.  We should not fear change but embrace the opportunities that will come from removing from our wrists the shackles of this failed European Union project.

Philip Smith: Our economic and political environment fundamentally changed with last week's referendum result.  On Friday, Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, said:
"The Bank of England has put in place extensive contingency plans."
Trying to calm the market free fall in the pound, he also said:
"we are well prepared for this."
Mr Carney showed a steady hand and provided reassurance to the markets.  The question is this:  are we similarly well prepared?  I hope that we are but fear that comments from the deputy First Minister suggest otherwise.  When asked what our contingency plans were, he clearly said that there were none.  His only contribution was to add more uncertainty with a proposal for an unnecessary and unwinnable border poll.
As we move into a period of economic turbulence and political uncertainty, it is foolhardy in the extreme to seek to add further instability, especially when, as officials recently told the Finance Committee, Northern Ireland's deficit with the Treasury is currently £9·2 billion, making any prospect of Irish unity an economic non-starter.  The bottom line is that a UK-wide referendum vote was taken, a decision was made and we now need to move forward as a United Kingdom, not component parts, to obtain the best deal for our country.
On Friday, the First Minister said that we needed a period of calm, stability and leadership, but she also stated that there was no contingency plan.  Surely it is a bizarre situation when the First Minister has not planned for the outcome that she campaigned for, especially when the result was going to be close and uncertain.  Where is the Northern Ireland Executive's contingency plan?  We are all aware that we have received billions from the EU in recent years, and there are billions still to come during the next Budget phase until 2020.  There is £1·2 billion in CAP payments and rural development, a further billion from the current round of regional development funds and millions more from the social fund and Peace moneys.  Some of the funding might be covered by additional budget from Westminster, but some might not.  At this stage, no one knows.  The expectation is that it will be two years, at least, before the full ramifications become clear, but, again, no one knows.
What we do know is that we will be impacted by two issues, both of which are outside our control.  First, a significantly weaker pound will reduce the value of EU payments in the short term to the Executive and to funding recipients like our farmers.  There is an element of swings and roundabouts of course, but the net impact is likely to dampen growth and investment in the short term, thereby reducing the revenue generated by Northern Ireland.  Estimates of the impact of the EU exit on Northern Ireland suggest a 3% reduction in GDP.  Secondly, we must also look at our debt and the potential for increased costs to fund that debt.  Let us also bear in mind that the Executive is indebted to the tune of over £1,200 per capita compared to, for example, £530 per capita in Scotland.
On Saturday, Moody's downgraded the UK's long-term issuer and debt ratings to "negative" from "stable".  Its analysis is that:
"the negative effect from lower economic growth will outweigh the fiscal savings from the UK no longer having to contribute to the EU budget."
This reduced credit rating will result in higher borrowing costs for government, businesses and households in the longer term.
We have a challenging financial environment that is exacerbated by the failure of the previous Executive to mend the roof while the sun shone.  That failure to reform and drive change in our public sector means that, unlike the Chancellor this morning, it is difficult for us to state that we come to this from a position of strength economically and with a fundamentally strong economy.  We need a coordinated response from the Executive that will produce a plan to protect our local economy and public services.  We need reassurance and leadership to calm markets and encourage investment.  We need an emergency plan that can ensure that Northern Ireland's voice is heard at Westminster and throughout Europe and that is clear in its demands to protect our funding streams and to put in place policies to facilitate our businesses to take advantage of any opportunities that arise.
As I said, we need reassurance and leadership, both of which have been in short supply since last Thursday's momentous decision.  I urge the Executive to show some urgency and some leadership and start to plan for this new economic and political environment.

Catherine Seeley: As party spokesperson for childcare, children and young people, I can only describe the referendum result as heart-wrenching.  The vast majority — three quarters — of 18- to 25-year-olds voted to remain.  It appears that Thursday was the day young people proved that they are much wiser than many others.  I therefore want to express solidarity with young people right across Britain, who have been let down by inter-party rivalry in a campaign which did not have their interests at its heart.  Again, this raises the urgent need to extend the vote to 16-year-olds.  Their level of engagement in the Scottish referendum was unprecedented.  If their vote was good enough then, why not now?  Thursday's result will impact most not on those who are 50-plus and who voted in their thousands to leave but on our children and our children's children, as their opportunities to study, live, love and work in another 27 countries while gaining invaluable life experiences —

Christopher Stalford: Will the Member give way?

Catherine Seeley: I will not give way.  That has been snatched away from them.  Young people have been denied opportunities, experiences and friendships.  That is certainly not a legacy to be proud of.
Linkages between universities will now be severed.  The ERASMUS school exchange programme will be called into question, and those young people from our neighbouring countries who have taken a brave step to live and work here now face huge levels of uncertainty.  Let there be no doubt:  young people will disproportionately bear the brunt, and the effects will be long-lasting.  I personally have been contacted by friends who are living, working and studying in Europe and widening their skills, who now say that there really is no point in coming home.  If unemployment is concerning now, the outlook is increasingly bleak.  Our talented and skilled young people will stay away when we need them to return home most.
In my constituency of Upper Bann, community projects funded by EU money will now collapse, with those in the pipeline suffering a devastating blow.  On Friday, I met representatives from NICEM, which represents the ethnic minority community of Upper Bann.  Their lives have been thrown into disarray.   Families are unsure where their children will go to school in September and if they will have a job in a month's time.  Families, who will endure countless sleepless nights, now need leaders to step up and reassure them.
In the coming days and weeks, Upper Bann will welcome Syrian refugee families into its communities.  I implore my constituents to extend a warm welcome because, sadly, the whole debate has given rise to the type of poisonous politics that we should never have witnessed.  The first sign of contagion was evident with the questions of citizenship that were posed by a Fianna Fáil TD in the South.
As Mr Stalford pointed out, the civil and human rights we enjoy were fought hard for, but they now lie in the hands of far right Tories who are hell-bent on scrapping the Human Rights Act.

Christopher Stalford: Will the Member give way?

Catherine Seeley: That is not good enough for anyone, particularly our most disadvantaged.  I will give way.

Christopher Stalford: She mentioned youth unemployment.  Can she tell me what the youth unemployment rate is in Greece?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Catherine Seeley: I am most concerned about the unemployment rate here in the North and the fact that this means that many of our youth now face a dire future.
To conclude, this is not the future our young people voted for.  If we do nothing, we will greaten the injustice.  I call on all those across Britain and Ireland who favoured "Remain" to come together and explore options pertaining to a continuing relationship with our friends in the European Union

Gordon Lyons: My first reaction to the result of the EU referendum was to welcome it, and I think an awful lot of people across Northern Ireland will have done the same.  My second reaction was that people need to take a breath.  People need to relax, and people need to calm down.  Yes, we have made a significant decision; yes, we have made a momentous decision; and, yes, there will be huge change in front of us, but I believe that can be positive change.  By the way, I say to Members that they are very foolish if they think there would be no change if we had stayed in the European Union.  There is certainly no certainty about remaining within that block.
Some mentioned the uncertainty.  Some mentioned the stock markets, and it is important to note, of course, that they are no worse off than they have been at certain points over the last number of months, but I am not surprised there has been some volatility —

Naomi Long: Will the Member give way?

Gordon Lyons: — when you consider that the prophets of doom have been preaching over the last number of months about how terrible it may be.  I will give way to the Member briefly.

Naomi Long: I thank the Member for giving way.  Does he dismiss as "prophets of doom" those businesses that are trading with the US and that have found that their costs have risen by 10% over the weekend?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Gordon Lyons: I would say that there are many people, especially those in the agriculture community, who will be very pleased about exports and the benefits the change in the pound will have.
People mention —

Christopher Stalford: I am grateful to the Member for giving way.  Would he agree with me that a party that advocated joining the euro is in no position to lecture the rest of us on economics?

Gordon Lyons: I obviously completely agree with what the Member said.
People also mentioned the uncertainty that could come as a result of the change we have made by voting to leave the European Union.  There will be uncertainty.  Do you know why?  We are getting control back.  There will be decisions we will have to make about agriculture, trade, borders, immigration and our money.  We now have decisions to make because we have that control back.  Those decisions were previously taken by other people and were dictated to us by other people.  We now have the choice to make about what we do in those areas.  We get freedom with the result.  With that freedom comes responsibility, and with that freedom comes the power to decide for ourselves.  I welcome that we will have an opportunity now to make decisions for ourselves.
(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker [Ms Ruane] in the Chair)
We also need to accept the result.  I have to say I was very disappointed with what Mr Eastwood said about young people.  The argument that has been trotted out over the last number of days is that, because greater numbers of young people voted to remain in the EU, in some way their votes are worth more or should be given greater weight.  We have democracy in this country.  We have one man and one vote, and I thought that is something that the Member would welcome.

Colum Eastwood: Will the Member give way?

Gordon Lyons: I will not give way.  My time is going, and I have already given way a couple of times.
We are a part of the UK, and we have voted to leave.  Those who are calling for a second referendum are only injecting uncertainty into the future.  It is also, by the way, a smack in the face for those who have decided to leave, and those are the people who so often feel ignored by the elites in this country.
So we have time to prepare; we have two years.  We know that our First Minister and deputy First Minister will work with Brussels and Westminster to ensure that we are in a good position as we negotiate our way outside of the European Union.  Although there has been so much negativity around this decision, I believe now is the time to embrace the possibilities that come with us leaving the European Union.  We have decided to leave a bloc of countries that stifles jobs, hampers trade and hurts agriculture — and, by the way, we have paid for the pleasure of doing all of that.  We are now in a position where we can march forward and be stronger than ever before.  I believe in the creativity of our people, I believe in their hard work, I believe in their industry and I believe in our ability to push the boundaries and make further progress for future generations.

Colum Eastwood: Thank you for giving way.  I know that he addressed some of the things I said.  I will maybe not go into that now, but, for the record, I do not believe that the vote of anybody, no matter what age they are or what background they are from, should be worth more than anybody else's.  That has been our position since our foundation.  Maybe a wee look into history would be useful for the Member.  I ask him to tell me:  how much of the money that you are telling us is going to be saved by not being members of the European Union is going to have to be ploughed into the banks, which are publicly owned and which have lost fortunes upon fortunes in the last couple of days?

Caitriona Ruane: I ask that all Members make their remarks through the Chair.

Gordon Lyons: I know that we are going to have an awful lot more money back now for us to spend in the way that we want.  We are going to have that freedom, and we are now going to have that control.  I welcome the result of the referendum, and I know that the First Minister and deputy First Minister will work to ensure that we get a good deal.  I believe that we have very good days ahead because of the possibilities and opportunities that leaving the EU will afford us.

Claire Hanna: For those I have been speaking to over the weekend, the overwhelming emotions are still shock and anxiety.  As much as the party across wants to gloss over the arguments and myth-making of the last few months, for something this major —

Christopher Stalford: Will the Member give way?

Claire Hanna: I am going to get under way.
For something this major, we are entitled to ask who did this, and why.  As an Assembly, it is our job to chart some sort of a course and to play the hand that we have been dealt, not just for the people who voted "Remain", but for all those people who are going to be affected by this.  That includes people who were too young to vote — I am not saying that a younger person's vote is worth more than anybody else's — and the tens of thousands of people from the European Union who have come here, work hard, pay into our system, did not get a vote and have been scapegoated for every problem of the world.
We warned about the carnival of reaction that would follow Brexit, and we are seeing it now.  We are seeing market instability, we are seeing the beginnings of job loss announcements and we are seeing the two UK Government parties essentially setting themselves on fire.  The polls show —

Steve Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Claire Hanna: I will give way.

Steve Aiken: As a question and a degree of clarification, the figure that we were talking about around the instability, which was brought by the other Member, is now £260 billion and rising.  That is a lot more than £8·5 billion.

Caitriona Ruane: The Member has an extra minute.

Claire Hanna: I am going to get to your points, but those who set themselves up as defenders of the Union and the empire should look at the polls in Scotland and be very careful about what they have wished for.

Christopher Stalford: Will the Member give way?

Claire Hanna: Will the Member sit down, please?
[Laughter.]
I am going to make a few points.
[Interruption.]
The Member has had his time; the Member can sit down.
[Laughter.]
I do not know what you are laughing at.  You have lost this.  Those who led —

Caitriona Ruane: Order.  Will the Member please take her seat?

Claire Hanna: Why do I have to take my seat?

Caitriona Ruane: I hope the Member is not challenging the Chair.  Will the Member take her seat?  We will have order and respect in the House, and all remarks through the Chair.

Claire Hanna: Those who led the "Leave" campaign have gone AWOL.  Your friends are popping up in the media to roll back on a lot of the spoofs that they put out over the last few months on extra money to the NHS, the ending of free movement of people and when article 50 would be triggered.  As the Member has said, the quarter of a trillion that has had to be pumped into standing up the pound today represents 20 years of EU contributions.  The Members across talk about the disenfranchised and the forgotten.  How are those people going to feel when they find out that they were lied to and that their opportunity and financial stability were thrown away for a handful of magic sovereignty beans?  There is now no plan.

Stewart Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Claire Hanna: No, I will not because I have given way for quite some time.
There is now no plan, and it is a dereliction of duty for the First Minister of Northern Ireland to say that, despite there being no plan, we will wash up the same creek that the UK Government find themselves in without a paddle.  This result was a leap into the unknown, and people here knew that.  A majority of people wanted to stay in Europe and have the stability, the opportunity and the cooperation that it offers.  We have to try to get that.
The DUP refuses to accept the democratic will of the people, 70% of whom voted for the Good Friday Agreement, and the DUP refuses to accept that a majority in the Assembly and a majority in the UK support equal marriage.  You choose which issues to veto.  The DUP said that the majority in Scotland did not vote for independence last time — that vote is smaller than the majority that you got — but that that majority is somehow decisive and settled while this majority is not.  You cannot pick and choose on these things.
Members wanting to make this a green-and-orange issue is another dereliction of duty.  We also need a Government that represents everybody here and not party interests, and I think that knee-jerk calls for a border poll are the last thing that we need.  We have seen over the last few months the atavistic passions that that raises in people, including people without a history of recent violent extremism, and a woman, an MP and a young mum is dead because of that.  We are too fragile to have that sort of instability.  We spent the last four months telling you that "Leave" was a leap into the unknown and so was a border poll, but I will tell you this:  the relationship between moderate nationalists and moderate unionists in the United Kingdom is fundamentally and recklessly altered.  The social democratic benefits, like the National Health Service and stability and tolerance, are now on their way out or are being taken out.  The principle of consent that we all adhere to in the Good Friday Agreement has been breached.  The constitutional status of Northern Ireland cannot change without the —

Roy Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Claire Hanna: No, the Member is going to get through some of her own points.
Whatever your views on the logic of Scottish unity, they did their homework, and we have not done our homework on maxing out devolution or on Irish unity yet.  We need to do that, but forcing that instability on people would be reckless in the extreme.  On how we move forward, let us not forget that we have the most imaginative constitutional settlement possibly anywhere in the world:  it allows people here to be British or Irish or both as they so choose, and you cannot just write that away.  Good political and legal minds wrote that while the party across was marching up and down the driveway, taking no part in the solutions, but solutions can be found.  Later today, we are to discuss the Budget and how we get corporation tax, which is the basket that we are putting all our eggs in, when every single foreign direct investor has said that they wanted us stable, they wanted us skilled, and they wanted us as a gateway to Europe.  Those on the left who put their ideological purity over public services and people have forfeited the right to complain about the hardship that the block grant being dumped will bring.
I am not given to quoting poetry, but I will in the last.  Yeats said:
"All changed, changed utterly:  A terrible beauty is born."
He also said, "the centre cannot hold".

Caitriona Ruane: Will the Member bring her remarks to a close?

Claire Hanna: The centre, the majority, voted for Europe, and it is the duty of the Assembly to represent that centre.

Lord Morrow: We have heard a lot today, and we have heard a lot over the weekend since this poll took place.  People do not like it when the little people speak, and, when people are given their democratic right, there is something infinitely wrong with that, particularly from those opposite.  It will soon get to the stage, I suppose, where there will be sections of our community and our great nation who will not be allowed to vote because they might not do it in the way that people want them to.  The little people have spoken, and I must say that I welcome the decision that they have taken.  Those who are confused today are confusing themselves, because let it be loudly stated that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom.  This was not a referendum in Northern Ireland; it was a referendum of all the people of the United Kingdom.
I listened to Ms Hanna, and she came very close to saying what had been said by the "Remain" camp.  What did it promise us if we voted to leave?  A third world war, an emergency Budget, and poverty would be our lot for the rest of our lives.  They have absolutely no confidence in themselves, no confidence in the country in which they live, and they just want to play it down all the time.   Mr Nesbitt has still failed to tell us which part of the Ulster Unionist Party he speaks for.  Does he speak for Tom Elliott MP, does he speak for Lord Rogan, does he speak for Councillor McGimpsey?  Tell us, which section of the party do you speak for?

Some Members: [Interruption.]

Lord Morrow: I will let you in later.  I have heard you long enough.
The EU referendum was a momentous democratic moment for the United Kingdom.  The decision to leave is, without question, one of the biggest political moments that any of us have experienced.  For me, the decision to leave is the right one for the United Kingdom.  For me, the decision to leave could not have been better.
I believe that the United Kingdom will not only survive outside the European Union but, in fact, will flourish.  We have left a shrinking EU for a better place in the world.  We no longer have to put up with the undemocratic nature of the European Union.  Thankfully, we will not be subject to that any longer.  No longer will those making consequential decisions for the people of the UK be beyond the reach of accountability.  The UK has voted to take back control of our own affairs, and that is a positive thing.
I respect the fact that for many in the UK, and in Northern Ireland, the decision to leave the European Union is one that they do not welcome.  I understand why some desired to remain within the EU and voted that way.  I was not one of them.  It is my hope in the years to come that those of us who desired to leave the EU will be able to win round some of those who wanted us to remain, as the benefits of being outside the EU become apparent.
There has been a hysterical response — and we have heard some of it here today — in some quarters to the decision to leave.  From what we have heard in the media, you would imagine that the sky is about to fall in.  Well, I can tell all Members:  relax, the sky is still in place, it has not come down just yet.  You would also imagine that the four horsemen of the Apocalypse are about to make their appearance in the aftermath of this vote.  It is not going to happen.
Many commentators seem to be on a mission to talk the United Kingdom down.  We are, apparently, too poor and too weak to make our own way in the world.  In my view, and in the view of my party, the UK is a strong country, with the fifth biggest economy in the world.

Naomi Long: The sixth.

Lord Morrow: We can, and will, thrive outside the European Union.  What we do not need right now is the sort of hysterical response that we are getting from that quarter over there.
[Interruption.]
Yes, it is the case that the UK will face significant challenges in the months and years ahead.  Political leaders in Northern Ireland will need to think carefully about issues such as the status of the border with the Republic of Ireland and our trading relationships with countries around the world.
Now is the time for cool heads.  We need a cross-party approach to consider carefully how we in Northern Ireland can best thrive outside the European Union.  We need to be willing to listen to the wisdom of those who desired a "Remain" outcome —

Caitriona Ruane: Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Lord Morrow: — and those who voted "Leave" in considering how we go forward. This country has the intelligence and capability —

Caitriona Ruane: The Member's time is up.  I call Jennifer McCann.

Lord Morrow: — to thrive regardless of whether we are in —

Caitriona Ruane: I call Jennifer McCann.

Jennifer McCann: I have been listening to the debate since I came into the Chamber.  Really, we are listening to a lot of grandstanding.  We are listening to a lot of people who are saying that this is a victory for the ordinary person on the street and the ordinary person in society, and everything else.   I am confused, and I do not know what people out there are thinking when they are listening in, if they are listening in, or will be listening to this later.  The people who we should be talking about in the Chamber today are those who live in the North of Ireland.  We should be talking about the people who voted to remain, not those who voted to leave, because the people who elected us and who we represent are the people who live in the North of Ireland, and they voted to remain.  That said, I want to break this down to the actual realities, because sometimes a dose of reality is needed in a debate like this.
This morning, I visited a community organisation in west Belfast.  It has services for children with severe disabilities and complex needs.  It helps to support the families of those children as well.  It is organisations and groups like that and the services that they deliver that will be impacted, not the people that you are grandstanding about or the great empire that you are talking about.  It is about ordinary people on the street: children with disabilities and their families, women's organisations and community organisations right across the piece in constituencies represented by everyone in the Chamber.
We know that the cuts that have already come to those community and voluntary organisations will be worse after this result.  Do you really believe — does anybody in the Chamber believe — that the money that will not go to Europe will come here?  Does anybody seriously believe that?  Look at the Tory austerity programmes and policies that have already been put in place: how can anyone seriously get up today and say that the community services that will go because structural funds, Peace funds and the ESF have gone will be replaced?  I certainly do not believe that, and I am not convinced by anything that I have heard today.
I just want to touch on the voluntary and community sector.  Peace moneys have been here since 2007, and we thought that they would be here until 2020 at least, although they might not now.  Those moneys were to build positive relationships between our communities.  We saw young people, women's organisations and local communities availing themselves of them.  They helped to build spaces for people to come together, even in constituencies like West Belfast, and I see Members on other Benches who represent West Belfast.
There was a small youth organisation, R City, from the Hammer on the Shankill and Ardoyne.  Those two sets of young people came together in a neutral place, and they went out to South Africa to help other underprivileged children and those less fortunate than themselves.  My DUP colleague, who was junior Minister at the time, and I went out to visit the organisation.  Some of those young people, who were 15 and 16 years of age, had never come together to meet somebody from a different community background.  That money brought those young people together in that space so that they could go out and help people in a different country.

Catherine Seeley: Will the Member give way?

Jennifer McCann: Yes.

Catherine Seeley: Would the Member agree therefore that the result of the referendum will disproportionately affect our young people and future generations?

Caitriona Ruane: The Member has an extra minute.

Jennifer McCann: I think that it will.  A lot of the victims and survivors money comes from Europe as well.  This will impact really seriously on ordinary people.  I plead with people in the Chamber to speak with a united voice and to show leadership. Communities and families are very concerned about their services, and people from ethnic minority backgrounds are very concerned.  I make a plea that we speak with a unified voice.

William Humphrey: I thank the Member for giving way.  I pay tribute to Alan Waite and the people who work on that project.  Does the Member really think that the speech that she has just delivered provides him, his colleagues and the young people on the project with any comfort?  Is she not raising fears as her colleague to her right did when she was speaking?  We should be playing them down and giving people certainty and surety, not raising people's concerns.

Jennifer McCann: There is not any certainty; that is why I am speaking the way I am.  The community and voluntary sector —

Caitriona Ruane: I ask the Member to bring her remarks to a close.

Jennifer McCann: That is what will impact on ordinary people and families.

Caitriona Ruane: The Member's time is up.

Stephen Farry: It is appropriate that we have this debate today.  It is a shame that it is the Opposition who have brought it to the Floor: this matter affects all of us.  It is perhaps the most serious issue to face the Assembly during its entire existence; indeed, it is perhaps the most serious issue to face the UK since the Second World War. Let me also be clear that I accept that this is a UK-wide vote, and we have to respect the outcome, no matter what position we took on the referendum.  We have to deal with the consequences and implications that flow from it.
Equally, it would be wrong to work on the basis that the UK is a unitary state and we are all now lumped in together on where we go and what the future is.  Look at the very name of the UK — the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are familiar with the fact that, for example, we have separate football teams — as an aside, let me say, "Well done" to Northern Ireland; I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating the team on its outstanding success in the Euros — and we have the reality of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.  Scotland is a kingdom with its own separate history, and they have now established a principle that they can do things differently.  In Northern Ireland, we are very much a place apart, particularly in the context of our land border on the island of Ireland.  We also have our very particular constitutional settlement based on the Good Friday Agreement, with a three-stranded set of relationships and, importantly, the ability of the people of Northern Ireland to determine their future through the principle of consent.  To be accurate, that is framed only in terms of the issue of whether we are part of the UK or a united Ireland, but I make the point to stress that we have the ability to take our own decisions and are a separate place in how we are seen by the UK as a whole, the European Union and the wider world.
The consequences and implications of Brexit will be massive and far-reaching for Northern Ireland, the UK as a whole, the island of Ireland and, indeed, the rest of the European Union.  A lot of dominoes could fall over the coming months and years.  We have set ourselves on a path, but we do not know our destination.  Certainly, staying in the European Union had a certain risk and uncertainty, but that is nothing like where we find ourselves today.
I hear comments from people, most recently Lord Morrow, about the importance of taking control.  That was the mantra of those who advocated taking us out of the European Union.  Let us be clear: no one is in control.  We have an absolute mess.  We have Boris Johnson scrambling around, as one commentator put it, trying to find the pin to put back into the hand grenade that he has set off.  There is no leadership whatever, and no one is taking control of the situation.  There was no plan before for what would happen in the case of a vote to leave, and there is no plan today for where we are going.

Steven Agnew: I thank the Member for giving way.  Does he agree that, like many of the arguments of the "Leave" campaign, "Take control" was an English argument?  As we have seen, with the majority of people in Northern Ireland having voted to remain, we are not actually in control.

Caitriona Ruane: The Member has an extra minute.

Stephen Farry: I concur with the Member's point.

Jim Allister: Will the Member give way?

Stephen Farry: No, I need to press on.  Let me also be clear about the argument that this is about the ordinary people versus the elites or the Establishment. We have had a lot of comments that have been very disparaging of people who voted to stay in: they are ordinary people as well.  This is, fundamentally, a battle within the Tory Establishment.  It is not the Establishment versus the people; this is a fight within the Tory Establishment, with the people of the UK as their plaything.

Christopher Stalford: I thank the Member for giving way.  When I was on the referendum programme on the night that the votes were being counted, the very first thing that I said was this: "I love my country, and I believe that the people who voted to remain love their country as well".  I do not think that anyone will be able to point to anything that either I or any of my colleagues have said that disparages people who voted to remain.

Stephen Farry: At the start of the Member's comments, he referred to the victory of the ordinary people: the people on the other side of the argument are also ordinary people.  Hopefully, that addresses that.
Let me come to the crux of the issue of where we find ourselves as an Executive and an Assembly.  This is for the DUP in particular: Northern Ireland has voted to remain. That is a matter of fact.  We are also a separate entity in the context of the overall UK.  There is an issue for the First Minister as to whether she and her party will recognise those special circumstances in how we move ahead.  Arising from that, will there be the capacity in the Executive —

Lord Morrow: Will the Member give way?

Stephen Farry: I need to move on, sorry.  Will there be the capacity in the Executive and the Assembly to argue for Northern Ireland in taking our special circumstances into account?
Will there be any capacity to seek special modifications or recognition of any special status for Northern Ireland?  Those are issues that are very much on the minds of the people and business community of Northern Ireland today.
Let us be clear that there are many, many issues for us to address:  access to the single market, which, let us not kid ourselves, is the single biggest reason why companies want to invest in Northern Ireland; the future of our public finances, which are already precarious; and the fact that we face a shrinkage of the Northern Ireland economy.  For the benefit of Lord Morrow, the reason why we are saying that we are the sixth largest economy rather than the fifth is that, with the "Leave" vote, France overtook the UK overnight.  It has implications for the Good Friday Agreement and for where our border will be in terms of the free movement of people and goods.  These are all issues that the Executive have to take —

Caitriona Ruane: I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

Stephen Farry: — control of and provide us with answers.

Caitriona Ruane: Many Members are making comments from a sedentary position.  I ask them to refrain from doing so.

Steve Aiken: The Ulster Unionist Party respects the wishes of the British people, whilst clearly recognising that Northern Ireland and Scotland have, by a considerable majority, voted to remain in the EU.  It is clear that a significant constitutional crisis, the like of which the United Kingdom has rarely seen, is occurring.  Indeed, the turmoil in the country, the markets, and the palpable lack of confidence being shown in our political system are undermining Northern Ireland and, in particular, our economy.  We have already heard from many business leaders that there will be a slowdown in investment and a shutting down of the flow of FDI until confidence in the UK is restored.
What we do know is that, when the United Kingdom's economy slows down, the Northern Ireland economy stalls or goes into deep recession.  We hope that we are wrong, but hope is no basis for planning, helping to secure and retain jobs, and restoring confidence.  We also know that, over the coming months and years, the economy of Northern Ireland will be very low on the priority list of the United Kingdom Government, especially as the issues of Scotland, a possible general election, gaining trading arrangements with the EU and restoring faith in the United Kingdom political system will take up the majority of our mainland politicians' time.  We must act now to take control of our economy in the best interests of Northern Ireland.
As a party, we call on the Northern Ireland Executive urgently to enact discussions and think about legislating to help to recover confidence in our business sector, especially for our manufacturing, agribusiness, tourism and retail sectors and, above all, our many small to medium-sized enterprises.  Rather than just stating the obvious and rapidly growing problems, we ask that some of these proposals are given full consideration.  We ask the Executive, particularly the Economy, Infrastructure and Finance Ministers, to consider talking to the Bank of England and the Treasury to look to gain some access to infrastructure support funds.  We can look at the amount of quantitative easing that has already been passed to the banks, which is in the region of £250 billion.  We, as Northern Ireland, should be making a special case to look for additional funding to be able to get us through this situation.  We need to stimulate our economy.  We should be looking immediately at tax reductions, particularly corporation tax, stimulating our tourist sector and scrapping things like air passenger duty.  We know that those may not be devolved matters, but the situation has changed, and we need to look forward.
We could be improving support for our retail sector and looking at taking on the initiatives that the Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association (NIIRTA) has raised about retail business rate relief.  We should also start the process of easing our renewable energy requirements for our energy industry to reduce the cost of energy in Northern Ireland.  That might be a benefit of us coming out of the EU.
We need to take immediate provision to invest in our universities.  We have already heard their vice chancellors talking about the £55 million black hole.  We need to be preparing Northern Ireland to be as competitive as possible, particularly since we are heading into such difficult times.  We should be looking to see how we can fast-track infrastructure developments across the board.  We need to make Northern Ireland competitive.  If we do not do it, nobody else will.  I would like the Executive, particularly the First Minister and deputy First Minister — thank you very much for coming in, deputy First Minister — to put Northern Ireland first.  If we do not fight for the Northern Ireland economy, nobody else will.

Jonathan Bell: What has become very clear is that the United Kingdom has spoken conclusively.  I accept that there were different views and different arguments and that some of the arguments on either side may not have been presented as well as they could.  However, the United Kingdom has spoken.  This was not an individual country referendum; it was a United Kingdom referendum, and it has spoken, so it is now incumbent upon every politician to follow the people's instructions.  The result is clear, so now is the time for all of us to unite and seize what I believe will be a golden opportunity for all of the people of the United Kingdom.
We do not need to worry about some of the fears that were out there.  The Chancellor was out this morning:  there is not going to be an emergency punishment Budget.  I do not think that I have heard any air-raid sirens:  there is not going to be world war III.

Kellie Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Bell: I will in a moment.  We are not going to see our economy significantly damaged, given the opportunities that are opening up.  As I understand it, when we joined the European Union, it had 36% of the world's economy; today, it has 17%.  The United Kingdom — our United Kingdom — which has voted to take back control, set its own taxes and free itself to make laws that serve the people of the UK, is one of only two of the current 28 members of the European Union that do more trade with the rest of the world than with the EU.  So, now is the time.
To pensioners, I say that, in an ageist way, older people have been discriminated against and derogatory things have been said about you. I am sure that I am not alone in having heard derogatory remarks such as, "These people who are voting do not have long to live" — disgraceful comments.
We should remember that, while youth unemployment is falling in Northern Ireland, we seem to want, according to the Member opposite, to be shackled with the youth unemployment of Greece, at 48·9%; Spain at 45·3%; Croatia at 40·3%; Italy at 39·1%.

Stephen Farry: Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Bell: Seriously?  At 13·4%, by the official figures of the UK of under-25s, we want to fail our people in the way that others have been failed by the European Union?  I do not think our young people will buy that argument.

Gordon Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Bell: The Member opposite first, and then I will give way.

Stephen Farry: I thank the Member for giving way.  The danger of quoting statistics.  Will he also, if he has the list of youth unemployment figures, quote the figures from the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Austria and also, just outside the EU but part of the single market, Switzerland?

Caitriona Ruane: The Member has an extra minute.

Jonathan Bell: Thank you.  I will continue for the Member if he wants: Cyprus 30·5%, Portugal 30%, Belgium 25%, France 24·6%.

Gordon Lyons: I thank the Member for giving way. Would he agree with me that there has been an awful lot of negativity from those who lost the referendum, and although we can understand that some people are very disappointed with the result and can empathise with them, should our focus now be that, as the result has been declared, everybody should accept it and look in a positive way at how we can build an even better country?

Jonathan Bell: Absolutely.  We need to move forward positively.  What has the BDI, the German equivalent of the CBI, told us today? Let us just take a moment, "Free trade will continue; access to the single market will continue".  The only thing that we seem to be freed from is the sclerotic and opaque legislation of the corpus of European Union law from which there can be no appeal.
It is a golden opportunity for the United Kingdom, but let me thank the older people of this country.  Because while others may choose to be derogatory about them, it was the older people of this country who founded and built our National Health Service; it was the pensioners of this country who won two world wars; they built our industry and made the UK the fifth largest economy in the world.  Is anybody telling me that, with an economy to the value of, I believe, £2·31 million sterling, we cannot build a future for our young people?
Is anybody telling me that, with the third largest defence capability on this planet, we are not capable of defending our own people?

Steve Aiken: I thank the Member for giving way.

Christopher Stalford: He gave way to me.
[Laughter.]

Steve Aiken: Ach, come on — Madam Deputy Speaker.

Christopher Stalford: I am grateful to the Member for giving way.  A Member from Belfast South said that the people she has been speaking to have all been in agreement with her that this is a dreadful thing.  Is that not exactly what was wrong with the "Remain" campaign:  you talked only to people who agreed with you?

Jonathan Bell: I have 10 seconds.

Caitriona Ruane: Yes, 10 seconds.  It might be useful when you are taking an intervention to identify who you are taking it from.

Jonathan Bell: To conclude in 10 seconds, what the global economy needs into the future is flexibility, adaptability and for us to have control over our own destiny.  That is why I believe the majority of the UK —

Caitriona Ruane: The Member's time is up.

Jonathan Bell: That is why —

Caitriona Ruane: The Member's time is up.

Jonathan Bell: To be honest with you, Mike —

Caitriona Ruane: Will the Member please —

Jonathan Bell: Your defence is terrified because Arlene Foster's on fire.

Caitriona Ruane: Will the Member please take his seat?  His time was up, and his time was called.

Caoimhe Archibald: We heard a great deal this afternoon about uncertainty due to the result of last Thursday's referendum.  Arguably, there is no sector more impacted than agriculture.  The real problem is the uncertainty.  Our farmers, and consequently our rural communities, have no idea of the outworkings or implications of this result.  We raised this time and again throughout the referendum campaign, saying that those campaigning to leave had not outlined their plan for the agriculture sector upon an exit from the European Union.
We got platitudes that our farmers would, of course, still receive subsidies, but there was no information on what those subsidies might comprise.  Taking into account that 9% of the total CAP funding from the EU to Britain and the North comes here to the Six Counties, it is clear that those subsidies are a very significant concern to farmers here.  It seems that we are now in a situation where there is no plan and we have no idea what the future will hold for the sector.
There will obviously be a period when negotiations will take place, and we are being assured that, during that time, the funding that was committed will remain in place.  That funding is very significant, including some £1·9 billion of CAP funding and rural development programme funding.  The problem is that we do not know when that period of negotiation will begin or how long it will last.  Therefore, we do not know how long those funds be available.
It is important to reiterate how much our farmers rely on funding that the EU affords them.  There were some £236 million in direct payments annually.  Without those direct support payments, farm incomes would have been negative last year and in three of the previous five years.  Any reduction in direct support would leave many of our farmers in severe financial difficulty, with very negative implications for agricultural —

Trevor Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Caoimhe Archibald: Go ahead.

Trevor Clarke: I presume the Member voted to remain.  Could she have given farmers the assurance that the subsidies would have continued into the near future?

Caitriona Ruane: The Member will have an extra minute.

Caoimhe Archibald: We were certain that the direct payments would remain until 2020 in any situation.
I have not even touched on the impact on the rural sector.  The last rural development programme had a very positive impact on our rural communities, with those communities able to access funding for community projects and rural infrastructure.  The new rural development programme offered even greater potential, and we are now uncertain about how long that will last.  Planned community programmes will likely suffer or could become untenable.
Now that we are looking at an exit from the EU there are other significant issues that need to be addressed, including legislative arrangements and trade arrangements etc, which affect all sectors, including agriculture.  It should be pointed out that, although not part of the EU, Iceland, Norway, Lichtenstein etc, as part of the European Economic Area, have to comply for trade purposes with a range of food safety, environmental and veterinary legislation.
A major change has taken place —

Jonathan Bell: I thank the Member for giving way.  Does she accept that Norway and Switzerland are first and second in the Legatum Prosperity index?  They rejected the EU by 79% and 82% respectively.

Caoimhe Archibald: My concern is with the North of Ireland and the issues for our farmers.
A major change has taken place over the last few days, and the uncertainty that has resulted has already affected our economy severely.  It was mentioned earlier that it may have a short-term positive impact on export prices, but, in the longer term, the uncertainty will result in many farmers reconsidering their future in the industry, and that may impact on production.  We need direction, and we need some certainty for all sectors of our society.

Patsy McGlone: I feel that I have to reiterate for the benefit of some people why I bought into the European project.  We have to clarify to ourselves why, in the first instance, it was set up.  It is the world's largest international peace process.  Fundamentally, that is what was at stake.  As Europe was ravaged after two world wars, people and leaders saw the need to come together in the spirit of peace and reconciliation, and, ultimately, in the spirit of accommodation of difference.  In the week that is in it, with the anniversary of the Somme, I do not see any jocularity in anybody thinking that a world war is something to make jokes about.  I feel that the spirit — the true spirit — of the EU is as important today as it was on previous occasions since its foundation.

Naomi Long: I thank the Member for giving way.  Will he agree with me that it was never the case that "Remain" argued that an exit from the EU would lead to world war III?  It was simply that we stated — quite correctly, as the Member said — that it had made a tangible contribution to stability and peace in Europe over the past number of years.

Caitriona Ruane: The Member has an extra minute.

Patsy McGlone: I thank the Member for making that comment.  It is a crucial one.  Members may not appreciate that, but that is the way that it is and the way that I see it.  That is why, along with —

Gordon Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Patsy McGlone: Sorry, but I have other comments to make.
That is why I see it as being important for stability, important as a social driver and important for cultural accommodation and diversity within our communities.  That stability is crucial.  The fact is that 440,707 people in Northern Ireland bought that.  They saw the importance of stability.  They saw the importance of the future and of buying into it.
There are a number of other facts that we need to solidify around the Chamber.  As a direct consequence of Thursday's vote, the UK slipped into sixth place as an economy, we saw the run on the currencies, and we have heard about firms moving their location.  On that point, I sat as Chair of the Enterprise Committee and took evidence on the important issue, as it was then, of corporation tax.  Many of the people who gave evidence to that Committee, including key stakeholders and potential business investors and the like, saw access to the European markets on mainland Europe as a key factor in their making a decision to invest here.  Those are the important things.
We have also seen the consequences of people taking a two-way bet by getting a further passport.  Indeed, I have noticed people from all backgrounds doing that.  The biggest lie of the lot, however, was the one about the £350 million, some or all of which was to go to the health service.  Already, two of the authors of that misleading part of the campaign, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, have backed off from it.  People bought that lie.  They had concerns and they bought that lie, and now it has turned out to be exactly that.
On the economy and stability, a key element of exports from the North and of cooperation here is the rest of the island.  I will just quote a person who came up to me.  Now, I would hardly go as far as to call him a left-wing radical.  He is a lorry driver.  He said to me, "Patsy, am I back to this stupidity of having to line up at the border for a couple of hours to get clearance on my delivery documents if I am travelling down to County Clare?".  He often travels there.  That is a question from someone who is hardly a member of the ruling political elite.
I will move on to other elements.  One young mum came to me on Friday morning in tears, thinking about the future of her kids and the stability of the society that she was looking at now.  Was she one of the elite, a lefty liberal, or a member of the political establishment that has been referred to?  No, I do not think so.  I am talking about small farmers concerned about single farm payments; I am talking about people who saw opportunities under the local action group (LAG) programme to develop projects in our rural communities to offset the problems and difficulties that they are having with world trade prices for their beef and milk.  The little man is deeply concerned about the instability that has been brought about by this.  Students are concerned about the Horizon 2020 programme.  What about Peace moneys for community groups?  I attended the opening of a mental health charity on Friday morning.  One third of its project money comes from the —

Caitriona Ruane: Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Patsy McGlone: European social fund.  There is also concern about Erasmus from schools.

Roy Beggs: Everyone in Northern Ireland — certainly everyone in here — purports to be a democrat.  We should reflect on what that means.  There is a responsibility on everyone to accept democratic decisions.  Some, from their comments, appear to dispute the referendum decision.  I remind everyone that, in the Belfast Agreement, it was agreed that Northern Ireland would remain in the United Kingdom until the people of Northern Ireland decide otherwise.  I accept that there is a great deal of uncertainty about the future of the economy of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom because of the decision; nevertheless, it is democratically accepted that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom and will remain so.  We have to accept the decision that was taken in the national United Kingdom referendum, irrespective of what side of the argument anyone was on.  We need to get away from the futile argument of whether it will apply here or in Scotland.  It will apply here.  Let us move on and try to get the debate onto the more constructive ground of how we must react.
Northern Ireland businesses and their employees need clarity and certainty, and they want to know what can be done to give that to them.  We need to accept that the decision has been taken and get on to the debate about what future measures come in.  What else can we do to provide protection?  Some 40% of our exports in the United Kingdom — there is no reason to think that it is any different here — go to the EU.  We must ensure that those companies continue to export and to sell their goods and that employees will still be employed.  Let us get away from the futile argument that there has been here.

Gordon Lyons: I thank the Member for giving way.  Is it not important for the House, and, indeed, the country, to remember that, just because we have left the European Union, we are not severing all ties with it?  It is still going to be an important trading partner.  Further to Mr McGlone's comments, we can still have cooperation and can foster good relationships with the European Union, even though we are outside it.

Roy Beggs: I will come to that later.  It is not just about the firms exporting in Northern Ireland.  For anybody who deals with a firm that exports to Europe, their business could be affected if we do not get stable grounds for business in Northern Ireland.  For those who trade with others, there could be implications for their business.
Equally, there are ramifications for the many organisations in Northern Ireland that have, to date, received European grants, such as the social fund, the Peace fund, the regional development fund and funding for the rural community.  There needs to be greater clarity and certainty going forward.  What are the implications for those?  We also have the particular issue in Northern Ireland of the land border.  There is considerable trade across that land border.  Whether it is Caterpillar in Larne selling a major generator to a company in the Republic of Ireland or a small farmer selling some of his milk to a creamery in Monaghan, there are possible implications.  We need to ensure that trade will continue and that people will continue to be employed in Northern Ireland.  Enough about decisions in the past; the decision has been taken.  We now need solutions so that trade can occur and companies can continue in business.
We must not dwell on the past.  We must look at what the future arrangements will be and at what will be best from a United Kingdom and Northern Ireland perspective, and we must try to give reassurance.  I draw Members' attention to a paper from Dr Richard North and Robert Oulds of the Bruges group, entitled 'The Market Solution'.  It discusses the need for compromise and for staging posts in their ideal future solution.  There are choices available, but anyone here has to recognise that it takes decades to get a bespoke agreement with the European community.
Look at the recent trade agreement with Canada; and the Swiss model has transformed over years.  Are we looking for a Swiss model or for a Norwegian model?  We will probably have to accept something off the shelf that will come reasonably quickly or else it will take years and years, which we cannot afford.  We have to accept what there is in some of these models; there are things that some people will not like.  We will have freedom of trade, which is essential for our companies and for business, but there will also be freedom of movement of people, some of which has been opposed.  There is also the issue of having to pay a significant tax for access to Europe.
We need solutions and we need to move this forward.  While we have been speaking, the pound is now at a low.  It has gone down further and it is now at €1·20.  This is affecting businesses and real jobs in our economy, and we need solutions.  We need to get away from futile arguments and get solutions that will help our companies and businesses and protect jobs for the future.

Caitriona Ruane: As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the House takes its ease until then.  The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Alex Attwood.
The debate stood suspended.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — The Executive Office

Mr Speaker: I remind the House that questions 6 and 12 have been withdrawn.

Victims: Service Delivery

Colum Eastwood: 1. Mr Eastwood asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what discussions they have had with the Victims and Survivors Service on the long-term sustainability of service delivery for victims. (AQO 119/16-21)

Arlene Foster: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will ask junior Minister Ross to answer the question.

Alastair Ross: Our Department has been working in close collaboration with the Victims and Survivors Service and the Commission for Victims and Survivors to develop a comprehensive, sustainable and responsive service that meets the needs of all victims.  This has achieved significant improvements in the delivery of services, maintaining required levels of funding whilst improving and extending partnership working on the ground.  This financial year, over £14 million has been allocated to victims' services, demonstrating our continued commitment to ensuring that victims receive the best possible services.

Colum Eastwood: I thank the Minister for his answer.  Given the fact that the Victims and Survivors Service has been named as a lead partner along with his Department in a Peace IV project for victims and survivors, the application is currently finishing and, I think, the business plan is in for £17·6 million over three years, what is the Minister's view on what Thursday's decision will mean for that £17·6 million and the impact on victims?

Alastair Ross: The Member is right that a total of £17·6 million is being allocated to the victims element of the Peace IV programme.  The Victims and Survivors Service stage 1 application was successfully approved by Peace IV on 11 May.  A detailed stage 2 application must be submitted by today.  I recognise why he raises the issue, but of course he will understand that we have at least two more years for that programme to run, given that article 50 will not be invoked immediately.  We plan to continue to make sure that we get the funding from that Peace IV initiative.  In the meantime, we will also make sure that we have a more sustainable programme moving forward, so that victims and survivors, individually and in groups, maintain the levels of funding.

Mike Nesbitt: I think that I am right in saying that it is the junior Minister's first Question Time: if so, I welcome him to the House and wish him well. He will be aware that a review is being commissioned of the 10-year strategy for victims and survivors.  What has been his Department's input to drawing up and initiating that review?  Specifically, can he tell the House the review's terms of reference?

Alastair Ross: That collaborative design programme has been made up from personnel from the Department, the Victims and Survivors Service and the Commission for Victims and Survivors to ensure that development of an improved service delivery model is capable of meeting the needs of victims and survivors.  Work will continue throughout 2016-17 to progress the strands of work.  We will seek input from the sector on the redesign of the service delivery model.  There has been and continues to be extensive engagement with the victims sector on how those services can be improved, including a series of workshops that have identified key priorities, such as the greater need for partnership working.  The recommendations of that report will improve the service delivery model over the period from 2017 to 2020.  We will work to continue, throughout this year, to progress the strands of work of that collaborative design project.  Input will be sought from the sector on the development of the most appropriate service delivery model.

Pam Cameron: I welcome the junior Minister to his first Question Time and congratulate him on his role.  Can he outline what the mental trauma service will deliver as part of the service delivery to victims?

Alastair Ross: The Member will be aware that the Stormont House Agreement included commitments on victims and survivors.  The setting up of a leading mental health service was announced by the former Health Minister on 10 September 2015.  That position was reaffirmed by the Minister at a conference on 23 and 24 November.  Additionally, initial funding of £175,000 for early set-up costs for the new mental trauma service was announced by the former Health Minister on 24 February this year.  The new service model will support the delivery of an effective range of services through an integrated service step care model and governed by a partnership agreement between the Victims and Survivors Service, the statutory service and voluntary and community sector providers.  That partnership agreement is under development and will cover areas including the interface between the voluntary and community sector and the health and social care trusts, referral protocols, linkages, monitoring and evaluation and funding.

Sean Lynch: What engagements have taken place with victims' representative groups in services that have been provided?

Alastair Ross: There is regular contact with victims' and survivors' groups and, indeed, individuals.  I have met them, as has the First Minister.  That engagement is absolutely crucial in making sure that we deliver appropriate services, and it will continue over the months ahead.

Mr Speaker: Just before we move on to Mr Douglas, will the junior Minister adjust his mic?  It is a bit difficult for the sound to be picked up.

Social Investment Fund: East Belfast

Sammy Douglas: 2. Mr Douglas asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on social investment fund projects in East Belfast. (AQO 120/16-21)

Arlene Foster: Substantial progress has been made in East Belfast, with funding of £6·5 million committed.  Completed projects include the Bryson Street surgery, which opened in April and has transformed a derelict site into a purpose-built community doctors' surgery delivering vital healthcare to the local community. The Best of the East visitor centre also recently completed a refurbishment and opens in the coming weeks, providing a valuable tourism hub and social enterprise opportunities.  Additionally, two revenue projects are in the process of procuring organisations to deliver services on the ground: the community education project and the employability project. Work continues on the remaining projects.

Sammy Douglas: I thank the First Minister for her answer and for going out to the Bridges centre recently.  She will agree, I am sure, that it is a smashing project.  Apart from East Belfast, will she update the House on the progress of the social investment fund across Northern Ireland?

Arlene Foster: I enjoyed my visit to the Bryson Street surgery; it is a wonderful example of what the social investment fund has been able to achieve across Northern Ireland.  I had the opportunity to visit the projects that have finished, and I look forward to visiting many more.
As I indicated to the Committee when the deputy First Minister and I were before it just a couple of weeks ago, the current project commitments have associated costs of over £70 million.  Spend from 1 April 2012 to the end of May 2016 is over £10 million and is expected to increase to over £30 million in this financial year.  As of June 2016, 10 revenue projects have service delivery organisations appointed and have formally commenced delivery in local communities.  They will have significant spend this year as they maximise the number of participants over the next few months and deliver the services throughout the remainder of the year.  A total of 21 capital projects have commenced detailed design or construction and are incurring associated costs.  Therefore, this is a big spend year for the social investment fund.  It also reflects the progress made over the last year.

Alex Attwood: First, I welcome the junior Minister.  There is a widespread view that, as Justice Chair, he went some way towards earning that nomination.
Are there any plans in the First Minister's head or in her Department for a SIF II?  Is it not better that that approach to neighbourhood renewal is delivered through neighbourhood renewal?  Does she agree that even neighbourhood renewal is now in jeopardy, given its reliance on European funding, which will clearly be uncertain two years from now?

Arlene Foster: Thank you very much for confirming my wise decision on my junior Minister; I will take that from you, Minister Attwood.  There are no plans for a SIF II at present.  We are still very much engaged in making sure that we deliver SIF I, and I am pleased to say that that is now happening.  We recognise that, because it was new, innovative and imaginative, it had some teething problems, but those issues are being dealt with very effectively.
Therefore, we encourage participants in SIF to continue to work with our officials and to make things happen on the ground.  You can touch and feel the capital projects, but, for me, some of the most exciting projects under SIF have been revenue projects, which are about making sure that people are employable in areas where they may have difficulties finding employment.  Those will be great legacy projects, and I look forward to them being rolled out.

Stephen Farry: Does the First Minister recognise that a number of Departments that dealt with deprivation and skills had their budget cut more severely in order to create the social investment fund and that they are better placed to spend money efficiently, effectively and with stronger governance than the situation that prevails with the social investment fund at present?

Arlene Foster: Of course, Mr Farry fails to recognise that we are in a different era now.  We are in an era of working right across government and one in which the published Programme for Government includes firm outcomes.  The deputy First Minister and I feel very strongly that we want outcomes as opposed to processes, and SIF will, I think, give us outcomes right across Departments.  The Member said that other Departments might have been better placed, but that is not the era that we are in now.  We are in an era of joined-up government, making sure that everyone knows where we want to be in five and 10 years' time, and we will use programmes such as this to deliver on that.

Alex Maskey: I thank the Minister for her responses so far.  She has begun to address some of these matters, but will she outline the very positive impact that SIF programmes have had on local communities?

Arlene Foster: As I said, some revenue projects are very exciting.  We are investing £18·5 million in employment-focused projects, and, through that, supporting over 500 people through training and paid work placements.  A sum of £5·7 million has been invested in early intervention projects across the SIF zones, and almost 1,200 participants are availing themselves of those services.  Feedback from parents has been encouraging insofar as we are changing the behaviours of young people who otherwise may even have found themselves in care — it is as radical as that — and I think that we should be very proud that we are helping those young people to realise their potential.
Another area that we are focusing on is education.  With maths and English support at Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3, and literacy support for primary-school children, we are making a very practical difference to the lives of those young people.

FOI Requests: Deadline

Philip Smith: 3. Mr Smith asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what proportion of Freedom of Information requests submitted to their Department between 2011-16 were answered within the 20-day deadline. (AQO 121/16-21)

Arlene Foster: Between 1 January 2011 and 17 June 2016, our Department received 763 valid freedom of information (FOI) requests, of which 373 — 49% — were answered within 20 working days.

Philip Smith: I thank the First Minister for her answer.  Given that, during the last mandate, the Executive Office, under its former title of OFMDFM, found itself at the top of the list of complaints made to the Information Commissioner about Executive Departments, what plans have been put in place to ensure public confidence in transparency within the Department?

Arlene Foster: I hope — indeed, I believe — that we have started on a good footing in this mandate.  Of four requests under consideration, none are beyond the deadline of 20 working days.  We have made a good start.  It is recognised that OFMDFM is not like any other Department.  We receive a lot of requests that are sensitive, and many are very political in nature.  In responding to requests, we have to give them all due consideration and make sure that we answer them in the appropriate way for the person making them.  It also has to be recognised — it is political reality — that the ministerial input in releasing freedom of information requests has to be agreed between two political parties.  We recognise that there were difficulties in the past and are determined to try to deal with those issues in the future.

Ian Milne: Thank you, Minister, for your answers thus far.  What measures are being taken to improve performance even further?

Arlene Foster: As everyone is probably aware, senior civil servants must approve draft responses to FOI requests.  Departmental directors have been directed that they must allocate sufficient resources to ensure that FOI requests are responded to within the statutory timescales.
We are very much aware of the difficulties of the past and are trying to deal with those.  We have also put in place enhanced systems for the tracking and monitoring of requests to make sure that we encourage adherence to deadlines.  FOI performance is also reviewed at a weekly senior management meeting.  We have put in place measures to try to deal with issues that have arisen in the past.

'A Fresh Start': Update

Paul Girvan: 4. Mr Girvan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the implementation of 'A Fresh Start'. (AQO 122/16-21)

Arlene Foster: We continue to make good progress on implementing the commitments that we made in 'A Fresh Start'.  We are due to meet the Secretary of State and the Irish Government on Wednesday afternoon to discuss implementation, after which, it is our intention to publish a progress report.  We believe that we have a good story to tell.  In the last few weeks, for example, we have published the three-person panel report on disbanding paramilitary groups and appointed the co-chairs of the new Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition.  We will also finalise the membership of the civic advisory panel shortly.

Paul Girvan: I thank the First Minister for her answer.  In the Fresh Start Agreement, reference was made to corporation tax and how it would be delivered.  As a consequence of the referendum vote and the outcome on Friday, does the First Minister agree that the Azores judgement, which would have had a major financial impact on Northern Ireland, is no longer a priority?

Arlene Foster: Of course, one of the difficulties with a reduction in corporation tax was that we would have to pay for it out of our block grant allocation because of a European Union ruling — the Azores judgement.  We will want to explore with Her Majesty's Treasury, as a matter of some urgency, what impact the decision on Thursday has to that removal from our block, because, of course, we have committed to the devolution of corporation tax powers by April 2018.  We will want to try to look at the affordability of all that.  I assure the Member that that is one of the issues that we wish to speak to the Prime Minister and the Treasury about.  It is one of many issues, but it is one that we have on our radar.

Daithí McKay: Will the First Minister give us a more detailed update on the civic advisory panel?  Would she also agree that, as we face what is, undoubtedly, a political and economic abyss, it is more important than ever that we hear from civic voices in society as well as political leadership?

Arlene Foster: On the first question about the civic advisory panel, I can advise the Member that the deputy First Minister and I have spoken about that for a number of weeks and that we hope to be able to make an announcement about it in the coming weeks.  That is in active discussions at present.  As I said, we have made good progress on the paramilitary panel and the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition and, indeed, look forward to working with that commission.
It will not surprise the Member to know that I believe that we have a huge moment of opportunity, ambition and potential.  It is up to us in the Executive Office to make sure that we are well equipped to deal with that potential and ambition.  My ministerial colleagues are already tasking their officials to look at where Europe has been a drag on our competitiveness, our flexibility and our ability to do business in an innovative and imaginative way.  I look forward to hearing from ministerial colleagues on all those issues because, of course, that will form part of how we move forward in Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.

Nichola Mallon: Can the First Minister confirm whether it is the case, as London clearly sees it, that any negotiation on second-round effects of the devolution of corporation tax will be off the table in the event of the devolution of corporation tax?

Arlene Foster: Of course, they were being quite aggressive on those issues, but, because of the vote on Thursday, the issue of second-round impacts, never mind the cost, is something that we will want to revisit.  I am sure the Finance Minister will want to look at all those issues.  This gives us an opportunity to revisit the issues where we were having difficulties with the second-hand effects.

Kellie Armstrong: Will the First Minister guarantee that the action plan to tackle paramilitarism will be published by the end of June, which is Thursday of this week, as committed to on page 17 of the Fresh Start Agreement?

Arlene Foster: Certainly, it is our hope that we will have it by then.  We are working with our colleague the Justice Minister to have the action plan in place.  I think we have received a draft of it, and we are discussing it at the moment.  We hope to discuss it further at the Executive Committee on Wednesday of this week.

Maze/Long Kesh: Update

Robbie Butler: 5. Mr Butler asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the Maze/Long Kesh site. (AQO 123/16-21)

Trevor Lunn: 7. Mr Lunn asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what work is being done by their Department to develop a proposal for the regeneration of the Maze/Long Kesh site. (AQO 125/16-21)

Arlene Foster: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 5 and 7 together.
There is no current agreement on the Maze/Long Kesh site issues.  It is a prime site in a key location, and we hope we can find a resolution that will see the site developed.

Robbie Butler: I thank the First Minister for her answer.  Perhaps the First Minister can outline the level of engagement she has had with potential investors for that site, where, we were once told, there was the potential to create 5,000 jobs.

Arlene Foster: Of course, there is great potential on the Maze/Long Kesh site, but, unfortunately, there is not political agreement on how we can move forward at present.  That does not mean that nothing is happening on the site. The Member, in particular, will be aware of the yet again fabulous Royal Ulster Agricultural Society show that happened on the Maze/Long Kesh site in May of this year.  As with the three previous shows, this year's show was regarded as extremely successful.  Attendance figures are not yet available, but the corporation has indicated that in excess of 100,000 people attended this year's show.  Whilst we continue to hope that we can find a resolution on the future development of the MLK site, there is still activity on the site.

Trevor Lunn: I thank the First Minister for her answer.  Given that the Maze project was originally to benefit from considerable EU funding — indeed, we lost a tranche of funding due to our inability to agree about this in the past — how do the Executive expect to fund future investment if there is no EU funding available in the future?

Arlene Foster: To be blunt, other funds are available, whether it is private funding or other investors coming in from other parts of the world having shown interest in the MLK site.  We need to find a way forward on the MLK site.  I recognise that, and the deputy First Minister recognises that, therefore, for us, it is something we need to grapple with and get down to dealing with in the near future.

Carla Lockhart: I thank the First Minister for her answer.  Will the First Minister agree to engage in further discussions about the MLK site to see whether a solution can be achieved that can command community support and allow the site to be developed in the future?

Arlene Foster: Absolutely.  The deputy First Minister and I intend to have further discussions on the MLK site probably over the summer and into the autumn.  It is very much in our in tray.  We recognise the potential of the site.  It is because we recognise the potential of the site that we want to make good things happen on it.  So, yes, we will engage again to make sure that that happens.

Jim Allister: Does the First Minister continue to share the view to which her predecessor was brought in August 2013 that there is no prevailing basis on which the peace centre can proceed at the Maze?  Is that still her position?

Arlene Foster: Yes, that is still my position.

Delivering Social Change: Older People

John O'Dowd: 8. Mr O'Dowd asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister how their Department is addressing issues affecting older people in relation to the Delivering Social Change framework. (AQO 126/16-21)

Arlene Foster: A Delivering Social Change framework programme led by the Department of Health and jointly funded with Atlantic Philanthropies focuses on dementia services and includes a package of dementia projects that aim to transform the commissioning, design and delivery of dementia services. The programme makes a significant improvement in the quality of care and support for people — this particularly affects older people — to maintain their independence and to live independently with the condition for as long as possible and delivers an improved understanding of dementia in wider society.  Policy responsibility for older people transferred to the Department for Communities on 9 May.

John O'Dowd: I thank the First Minister for her response.  Clearly, dementia is an issue of topical debate and concern to many in our society.  Can the Minister detail some of the elements of the programme?

Arlene Foster: Absolutely.  Dementia has, I think, affected every family in Northern Ireland, not unlike cancer.  I very much welcome the work that is ongoing through the project.  It consists of three discrete work streams.  The first is raising awareness and information and support.  The second is training and development and delirium.  The third is on short breaks and support to carers.  I think that we all recognise that support to carers in particular is a fundamental piece of work. We are all too aware of the mental stress that is put on people who are caring for a loved one with dementia.  They need help and support, and they need to get away and have respite.  We therefore very much welcome the support for carers that is being delivered by all five trusts but led by the Member's own Southern Health and Social Care Trust.  Three providers have now been appointed to cover the other four trust areas, and the contract for the southern area has recently been advertised, with a closing date of 4 July 2016.  It is in place, it is working, and I value the work that it does.

Phillip Logan: Where does the First Minister see the future of the Delivering Social Change programme?

Arlene Foster: I believe that the Delivering Social Change project and programme has pioneered the co-design way of doing things, and the partnership approach that has been engaged in in that project is actually helping us to develop the way in which we want to roll out the Programme for Government framework.  The Programme for Government framework is very reflective of the principles and objectives of Delivering Social Change.  It really has led the way for the outcomes-focused Programme for Government, and I think that it offers real potential to guide further changes that we want to see emerging in respect of the Programme for Government.  It has worked well, and we will use the processes now to help us to deliver on the Programme for Government whilst engaging still with our partners in Atlantic Philanthropies.

Civic Advisory Panel: Update

Oliver McMullan: 9. Mr McMullan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the civic advisory panel. (AQO 127/16-21)

Arlene Foster: Steps for the establishment of the civic advisory panel were set out in the Stormont Agreement and implementation plan.  It anticipates a panel of six people, with members, including the chair, being identified and appointed by then OFMDFM — now the Executive Office — and the panel being tasked by the Executive to consider specific strategic issues relevant to the Programme for Government and report to the Executive, although it may also propose subjects that it wishes to consider and seek agreement from the Executive to do so.  As I have indicated, consideration is currently being given to identifying and appointing panel members.

Oliver McMullan: I thank the Minister for her answer.  Can the Minister tell us how this new body will differ from the previous Civic Forum?

Arlene Foster: The Civic Forum, which operated for just two years between 2000 and 2002, was not then reconvened when devolution was restored in 2007.  Back between 2000 and 2002, the purpose of the forum was to provide views on social, economic and, indeed, cultural matters.  The Stormont House Agreement provides for the establishment of a civic advisory panel as the new model for civic engagement.  I think that it will be more focused because it will be a lot smaller, and it is envisaged that it will be on a non-statutory basis.  Every effort will be made to minimise administration costs in connection with the new civic panel.

Mr Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions.  We now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions.

EU Referendum:  NI “Remain” Mandate

Nichola Mallon: T1. Ms Mallon asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether the First Minister accepts that the people of Northern Ireland have expressed their democratic will by sending a clear instruction to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister that they want to remain in the EU, and to outline how the First Minister intends to act on that mandated instruction. (AQT 96/16-21)

Arlene Foster: Of course, the mandated instruction was not to this place.  The mandated instruction was to the United Kingdom Parliament.  As I think Mr Allister pointed out in an intervention earlier today, when we voted on Thursday, we were asked whether we wanted the United Kingdom to leave the European Union or to remain.  I do, of course, accept that the majority of people in Northern Ireland — mostly in the west of the Province, which I represent — decided that they wanted to remain in the European Union.  There is no real surprise there.  At the beginning of the referendum campaign, we were told that up to 75% would vote to remain in the European Union.  As it turned out, it was 56% and 44%.
I have heard a lot said today, principally from the Member's party, about respecting the 55% who voted Remain, and I will, as will the deputy First Minister, respect that view.  However, the Member has to respect the view that 44% of people in Northern Ireland voted to leave, and the United Kingdom, which is the member state that engages with the European Union, voted to leave.
We can talk about all these different computations, but the campaign is over, the vote has been taken, and now our focus in the Executive, particularly between the deputy First Minister and me, is to make sure that Northern Ireland's best interests are preserved in the negotiations to leave.

Nichola Mallon: I welcome the fact that our First Minister respects that democratic view, but I think that what people want to know here is how she will act on what was their clearly expressed democratic will.

Arlene Foster: When I indicated what our party position would be, I said also — something that I repeated at the Executive Committee just a couple of weeks ago with the deputy First Minister — that whatever the outcome of the referendum, I would, after the referendum, work for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland in any negotiations.  I know that there are a lot of people in Northern Ireland who are disappointed, there are a lot of people who are angry, and a lot of people who have made all sorts of terrible prophesies of doom.  If others want to engage in navel-gazing, that is fine.  My focus is on doing what is right for all the people of Northern Ireland in the negotiations that will be coming up very soon.

EU Referendum:  Migrant Community

Alex Maskey: T2. Mr Maskey asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether the First Minister will join him and many others in assuring our migrant communities that they, and the contribution that they bring to our society, will continue to be much appreciated and welcomed in the future, in the context of the EU referendum result. (AQT 97/16-21)

Arlene Foster: I absolutely want to take the opportunity — I thank him for giving it to me, although I was probably going to touch on it during my wind-up to the debate, which is coming up soon — to reassure them that we absolutely value what they have contributed to Northern Ireland.  I do not think that any right-thinking person would say anything different because we recognise how they have come into our society, how they have integrated, and how they are helping us to develop economically.

Alex Maskey: I thank the First Minister for that response.  Obviously, I did expect that, and I very much appreciate it.  However, would the First Minister again appeal to all other parties and representatives to equally make it clear publicly, where they need to do that, that migrant residents here are very welcome?

Arlene Foster: Absolutely.  It is something that we should send out a strong message on from here today.  The vote on Thursday was to leave the institutions of the European Union; it was not to leave Europe.  We have close ties with the peoples of Europe, and those close ties will continue.

EU Referendum:  Powers for the Assembly

Gordon Lyons: T3. Mr Lyons asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether the First Minister agrees that, as a consequence of last Thursday’s vote, there are now many new opportunities for the Assembly as a result of the powers that will be brought back that were previously ceded to the European Union. (AQT 98/16-21)

Arlene Foster: Yes.  Over the weekend — maybe this is a sad reflection on me — I was reading a very good book, which I recommend to all Members, by John Bew on Viscount Castlereagh.  When he was developing plans for the Act of Union in 1799 and 1800, he talked about the potential and ambition that could come from it.  Likewise, I absolutely and fundamentally believe that this vote gives us the opportunity for ambition, innovation, flexibility and imagination.  I hope that everybody steps up to the mark and takes that opportunity.

Gordon Lyons: I thank the First Minister for her response.  This morning, the European Commission said that the Republic of Ireland cannot abolish water charges.  Does she agree that it is only by leaving the EU that Northern Ireland can escape the threat of imposed water charges?

Arlene Foster: We were aware of a threat from the European Union that it would insist that we brought in some charging for water services in Northern Ireland.  That the threat has now been lifted by our leaving the European Union is something that I very much welcome.  We opposed water charges again recently in our manifesto during the Assembly election.  I note that the Republic of Ireland has been told by the Commission that it cannot get rid of water charges, and that is something for everyone to ponder on the opposite side.

EU State Aid Rules

Nelson McCausland: T4. Mr McCausland asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether the First Minister agrees that one of the important benefits of an exit from the European Union is that Northern Ireland will no longer be bound by EU state aid rules, which have been negative and restrictive, and will, in a way not possible before, be able to support its local industries in building up their employment and capacity. (AQT 99/16-21)

Arlene Foster: Absolutely.  I have been listening intently to the debate on the European Union and the UK's exit from it.  I note that Mr Beggs talked about FG Wilson and the manufacturing that went on there.  In the past, we were constrained, by state aid rules and energy policy, from stepping in and helping manufacturing companies.  We all know that.  We have been constrained in when we can intervene to help the mobile and broadband market because of state aid rules.  I think that Mr Aiken mentioned air passenger duty as well:  we have been really constrained in what we can do to increase connectivity while helping airlines and airports.  So, there are opportunities.  Of course, they all have to be costed; I recognise that fully.  I am not suggesting that we have a free hand to do everything that we would wish to do, but there is more flexibility now and that is something that we need to explore.

Nelson McCausland: Will the First Minister undertake to explore as fully as possible what opportunities there are to make Northern Ireland and, indeed, the United Kingdom as a whole much more economically competitive and, in that context, to consider what can be done to rebuild our fishing industry in Northern Ireland?

Arlene Foster: As I mentioned on Friday, the fishing industry will very much welcome the vote last Thursday.  It has been given back some control over something that has been really constrained over the years, particularly when our Agriculture Minister was at the fisheries meeting in December.  The industry will very much welcome that.  I know that other ministerial colleagues are talking to their officials and asking them to assess where we can be more flexible and competitive.  I welcome that.   As I said before, I look forward to receiving information on how we can take that forward.

Euro 2016:  Northern Ireland Football Team

Paul Frew: T5. Mr Frew asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in an attempt to lift the doom and gloom being felt by some Members by bringing a bit of light relief to the Chamber, whether the First Minister will take this opportunity to congratulate the Northern Ireland team on its performance at the European Championships and to pay tribute not only to the manager and the team but to the support staff who make it happen. (AQT 100/16-21)

Arlene Foster: Because I am in this privileged position, I had the opportunity to go out and be with the team on two occasions.  Let me say that I am so proud of Michael O'Neill and the Northern Ireland football team.  I have to mention, in particular, Michael McGovern, who is from my home town of Enniskillen.  My goodness, that game with Germany was difficult to watch.  I think I was behind the settee for most of it.  It was an absolutely fabulous masterclass in football.  I take the opportunity to thank the support staff as well.  They were marvellous in the way in which they supported the team and provided information to all the fans, so that we knew what was going on through social media.  They had a marvellous social media campaign that allowed everyone to keep in touch.

Paul Frew: I take the opportunity to thank the First Minister and the Chief Whip for allowing me the time off to follow my dreams.
[Laughter.]
Does the First Minister agree that the fans, both those in France and those who remained in the Province, did the country proud and sent messages and set a lasting legacy, not only in France but throughout the world?

Arlene Foster: At the start of the tournament, there was a lot of concern about fans because of some of the threats that were around and also because of, let us be honest, the English and the Russian fans.  However, I am very pleased to say that the Northern Ireland fans, and Republic of Ireland fans, played a marvellous role.  Both sets of fans were brilliant.  They really lifted the spirits.  'Will Grigg's on fire' is now trending in France.  Who would have thought it?  And poor Will did not even get a kick of the ball.  That just shows the quirkiness of our fans, and I thank them.  There are many behind me who were out in France with the fans, and I thank them for their positivity and professionalism.
I also want to reflect on the fact that two fans lost their life when they were in France.  It was really very sad to watch the images of Darren Rodgers's funeral and that of the other gentleman who died of a heart attack.  We recognise that there were moments of great sadness, as well, during the campaign.  We hope that their families take some comfort from the fact that they are part of a much wider family.

Ballymurphy Massacre:  Truth and Justice

Gerry Carroll: T6. Mr Carroll asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether the First Minister, having met the families last week, agrees that the families of those killed in the Ballymurphy massacre, who have been campaigning for justice since 1971, have the right to that justice, and to state whether her office will do all that it can to assist those families in their pursuit of truth and justice. (AQT 101/16-21)

Arlene Foster: Indeed, there are many families right across Northern Ireland who still pursue truth and justice.  It is one of the saddest indictments of society in Northern Ireland that so many people who had loved ones cut away and murdered will never be able to have justice and closure.  I spent some time with families yesterday in Killen, Castlederg.  They lost loved ones to terrorism along the Tyrone border.  My message to them was this:  I will not allow the past to be rewritten.  I am very clear on that.  There are some attempts to do that, and I will not countenance it.

Gerry Carroll: I thank the First Minister for her response.  The Ballymurphy families have been campaigning for justice for over 40 years since the massacre was committed.  Eleven innocent victims were shot down, over a three-day period, in cold blood by the state.  Their families have yet to receive any recognition of the atrocities committed at the hands of the state or, indeed, any legal redress for the crimes carried out.  The years of grief and suffering for the families are a shocking indictment of a state that has sought to wipe its hands clean.

Mr Speaker: Mr Carroll, can you come to a question?

Gerry Carroll: Will the First Minister support the call for an independent, international investigation to examine the circumstances surrounding all those deaths?

Arlene Foster: Of course, the dealing with the past part of Fresh Start is something which, we regret, could not be taken forward at that time.  We are engaged in trying to move that forward; I am hopeful that we will be able to move it forward.  Then all victims, and indeed those who have suffered in a very real and tangible way, will be able to get closure on their issues.

Oral Answers to Questions — Infrastructure

Mr Speaker: I welcome Mr Hazzard to his first Question Time as Minister.

Gortcorbies: Climbing Lane

George Robinson: 1. Mr Robinson asked the Minister for Infrastructure for his assessment of the provision of a climbing lane at Gortcorbies, on the A37 Coleraine to Limavady main traffic corridor. (AQO 133/16-21)

Christopher Hazzard: A proposal to provide a climbing lane on the A37 Broad Road at Gortcorbies between Limavady and Coleraine has been developed by my Department.  This project envisages the construction of a new road just to the north of the existing road to deliver a 2·4-kilometre length of climbing lane, providing a positive overtaking opportunity that would reduce queues and the potential for collisions caused by driver frustration.  The scheme would complement the existing lane on the Coleraine side of the mountain.  As the House will be aware, all capital road improvement schemes must compete for funding alongside other Executive priorities.  I must, therefore, prioritise spending on those areas with the greatest need.
My Department remains committed to improving connections for people and goods and services, and I have already stated my commitment to two of the Executive's flagship projects to improve road connections to the north-west.  As such, my Department is pressing ahead with the plans for dualling of parts of the A6 and dualling of the A5.  Currently, no funding is available for this project.  However, a climbing lane at this location has benefits and will, therefore, be considered further should further funding become available.

George Robinson: I thank the Minister for his response, which sounded fairly positive.  As this is a vital tourist and economic road link between Londonderry, Limavady and the north coast and there is road accident potential, will he try to prioritise this stretch of road for the provision of a climbing lane when roads funds become available?  I know that money is short, but it is essential that this part of the road is upgraded.

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for the supplementary.  As the Member will know, the scheme looks to provide more than 2·4 kilometres of overtaking opportunity.  I am led to believe by officials who have been looking at the road that this may be possible without going for the full extent of the scheme outlined in plans previously.  We are prepared to have a look at it because the Member is right in saying that there are obvious opportunities and benefits for that area from a scheme like this.

Gerry Mullan: I thank the Minister for his answers thus far.  As Mr Robinson stated, the A37 is a major transport corridor for the north-west.  Will the Minister give assurances that, after many years of delay, this scheme, as well as the Dungiven bypass, will progress in this mandate?

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his question.  I can certainly give guarantees that the Dungiven bypass, as with the dualling works on the A6, remains a priority for me and my Department in this mandate.  As I outlined to Mr Robinson, the money is not there at this time to do this project, but there may be other engineering solutions that we are prepared to look at.

Magherafelt Bypass

Linda Dillon: 2. Ms Dillon asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on the completion date for the Magherafelt bypass. (AQO 134/16-21)

Christopher Hazzard: Work on the construction of Magherafelt bypass began in May 2015.  Whilst progress on the bypass was initially hindered by inclement weather after construction began in May 2015, the recent spell of good weather has been timely and enabled the earthworks element of the works to be completed.  The overbridges and drainage are also almost complete, and the side roads have been reopened to traffic.  Pavement construction is well under way, and approximately 30% of the carriageway has been laid.  Work to create new roundabouts at Moneymore Road and Aughrim Road is nearing completion, and work on a new roundabout on Ballyronan Road is scheduled to commence in July.  It is anticipated that the new road will be open to traffic in October 2016.

Linda Dillon: I thank the Minister of his answer and welcome him to his first Question Time as Minister.  Will he give an indication of when construction will commence on the Randalstown to Castledawson section of the A6?

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for her kind words.  We are taking on two major dualling projects on the A6:  the Randalstown to Castledawson scheme and the Derry to Dungiven scheme.  The 15-kilometre Randalstown to Castledawson scheme comprises two sections of dual carriageway either side of the Toome bypass.  Detailed design is ongoing, as are discussions with the appointed contractors regarding agreeing a target cost.
Subject to the satisfactory conclusion of these discussions, and DOF approval of the business case, construction should get under way in late summer 2016.

Trevor Lunn: The Minister will be aware of the many promises that his predecessor made — before the election, of course — about major road projects.  He seems to be saying the same thing now:  it will be as and when money becomes available.  He has just given us the timescale for the Randalstown project, but can he give us any idea of the timescale for any of the major projects?

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his question.  He mentioned the tight economic times in which we operate, and, despite us having a number of very worthwhile projects in the planning process and going through different stages, inevitably, our ability to deliver some of them will come down to hard cash.  I outlined that construction work on the A6 is due to commence later this summer.  I hope that construction on the A5, following the Planning Appeals Commission inquiry, will begin at a similar time next year.  The Magherafelt bypass is nearing completion.  A number of large road schemes are taking place and, as moneys become available, that will continue.

Mr Speaker: Before we move on, I inform the House that questions 3 and 13 have been withdrawn.

Roads Infrastructure: South Antrim

Steve Aiken: 4. Mr Aiken asked the Minister for Infrastructure what plans he has to improve roads infrastructure for the main towns in South Antrim. (AQO 136/16-21)

Christopher Hazzard: As the Member will be aware, at the end of last year, the £133 million A8 dualling scheme between Belfast and Larne was completed, which represents one of the largest investments in the road infrastructure in the North in recent years.  I am also pleased to confirm plans to resurface the A8 between Corr’s Corner roundabout and Houstons Corner roundabout on the outskirts of Newtownabbey.  The scheme is expected to cost in the region of £900,000 and will include an overlay of the existing carriageway and the creation of a new pedestrian and cycle path on the southbound side that will link into the national cycle network.  The scheme is out to tender and expected to commence on-site later in the summer.
I can also confirm plans to invest £130,000 in local transport and safety measures in the South Antrim area this financial year.  These will include the provision of new puffin crossing facilities at Mossley Primary School and Ballynure Road, Ballyclare, and a collision remedial scheme at Doagh Road in Newtownabbey.  Plans are being prepared for the upgrade of the Doagh Road/Station Road/O’Neill Road junction at Cloughfern in Newtownabbey; the widening of the Manse Road between Prince William Way and Carnmoney Road North; the widening of the Hydepark Road in the vicinity of Boghill Road and provision of a footway on Carntall Road, all in Newtownabbey; and the provision of a footway at Shore Road, Toome.
Details of all work being carried out by Transport NI in the mid and east Antrim area can be found in Transport NI’s annual report to Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, which is now available on the departmental website.

Steve Aiken: I thank the Minister for his answer and welcome him to his first Question Time.  I also thank him very much for his detailed description of what we are looking to do in South Antrim.  My constituents and I thank him for that.
Will he and the Minister of Finance look at innovative financing arrangements for the much-needed Ballyclare relief road and new bridge over the Sixmilewater?  Ballyclare is in a position quite unlike other places in Northern Ireland, in that it is growing and growing fast.  We need to be able to support the people of Ballyclare.  We need to improve the social well-being of people in South Antrim, and significant work is needed to improve the economy of that area as well.

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his supplementary, and, indeed, for his kind words.  I think that it is important that all Ministers, especially in light of the decision taken last week, are innovative and think outside of the box when looking at funding arrangements.
The Ballyclare bypass, or western relief road, is identified in the Belfast metropolitan transport plan as being required to support development proposals in the area.  Therefore, it is termed a developer-driven road, and it is the responsibility of developers to build it.  As such, the Ballyclare relief road will not be funded from the public purse and is not programmed for delivery by my Department.

Paul Girvan: I thank the Minister for his answers thus far and for detailing the list of projects that are under way.  I want to come back to the Ballyclare relief road.  On the understanding that we know that mechanisms exist elsewhere — maybe not in this jurisdiction — whereby a Department can access funding to deliver a project and draw it back over time, will the Minister look at that for the Ballyclare relief road, if possible?

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his supplementary question.  As I outlined in my previous answer, I am more than happy to meet with any Members who have innovative ideas and approaches to the situation.  Our options and the number of places where we might be able to look for alternative finance may be limited, on the back of decisions last week.  As I said in my previous answer, I am more than happy to sit down with the Member and discuss some of those ideas.

Declan Kearney: Guím gach rath ar an Aire san Aireacht úr seo.  I wish the new Minister the best in his future portfolio.  I bring to his attention the serious road safety concerns on Main Street, Glenavy and the nearby Glen Road and Chapel Road.  I ask that his Department undertakes the necessary surveys required for urgent remedial works to be completed.

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his supplementary question.  Some of the safety measures that I outlined in my initial answer to Mr Aiken included some of those measures, such as the puffin crossings at Mossley Primary School and Ballynure Road in Ballyclare, traffic calming measures on Avondale Drive in Ballyclare, a collision remedial scheme on Doagh Road and general traffic management measures, such as pedestrian refuge, footway upgrades, bus measures and traffic signal upgrades.  I am not aware of the particular issue that the Member raised, but I am more than happy to sit down with him and other Members to discuss some of those concerns.

Ballynahinch Bypass

Jim Wells: 5. Mr Wells asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on the progress of the Ballynahinch bypass. (AQO 137/16-21)

Christopher Hazzard: A significant amount of work has been completed on the A24 Ballynahinch bypass to progress the scheme through the preliminary options, preferred option and proposed option scheme assessments.  This work enabled publication of the environmental statement, draft direction and draft vesting orders in March 2015.  The former Department for Regional Development received a number of objections during the statutory consultation period for the draft orders, and it was determined appropriate to convene a public inquiry to examine the case for and against the proposed scheme.  The inquiry was held on 26 and 27 January this year.  The inspector's report of the inquiry was subsequently received in March 2016.  The Transport NI project development team considered the report and its recommendations and is preparing a report for my consideration, which will be ready later this year.  Subject to a satisfactory outcome, my Department will publish the environmental statement and notice of intention to proceed, and it will make the direction order for the proposed scheme.

Jim Wells: He, of all Ministers, knows the importance of the Ballynahinch bypass.  Like me, he has been stuck in Ballynahinch far too many times.  Can he give the House a commitment that he will cut the ribbon to open the Ballynahinch bypass within his five-year term?

Christopher Hazzard: As local MLAs, we know the back roads to avoid the congestion in Ballynahinch town.  That is not to suggest that the bypass is not a significant priority for my Department.  Whilst it is not a flagship project, it is very important for not only tackling congestion in Ballynahinch town but the wider south Down area.  I remain committed to seeing the project through so that, if funds become available, we should be able to progress with it.

Mr Speaker: Before I call Ms Armstrong, I remind her that this is a constituency-specific topic.  Therefore, I expect the question to be constituency specific.

Kellie Armstrong: As an MLA for Strangford, where Ballynahinch is, I certainly will stick within my constituency.  It is not just an important point for people getting through Ballynahinch.  Quite a number of people have contacted me with their concerns about safety on the Belfast Road, particularly where Assumption Grammar School is and where quite a lot of elderly residents live.  Have the Minister's considerations, following the public inquiry, included anything about a crossing for that part of the road, given that it is so dangerous?

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for her supplementary question.  I am, as a local person, well aware of the road safety concerns in recent years for some pedestrians inside and outside the town.  Road safety is paramount for my Department, and any plans will take that into consideration.

Grass Verges: Cutting Schedule

Jo-Anne Dobson: 6. Mrs Dobson asked the Minister for Infrastructure whether he will reinstate the policy of providing two cuts of grass verges per year in rural areas and five cuts per year in urban areas. (AQO 138/16-21)

Christopher Hazzard: The provision of grass-cutting services, along with many other routine maintenance activities, has been adversely affected not only by budgetary constraints in my Department over the last two years but as a result of our economic climate, at the behest of Tory Ministers in London.  As Members will appreciate, the provision of all public services depends on the availability of funding.  The restoration of grass cutting and other maintenance activities to normal levels ultimately depends on the available budget. I am pleased to say that, as a result of the Finance Minister's announcement of an additional resource allocation as part of the June monitoring round, an additional grass cut across all areas will now be undertaken.  That means that rural grass verges will be cut twice this year.
Grass-cutting operations carried out by my Department are for road safety reasons and not for cosmetic or amenity purposes.  I fully realise that the reduced level of service has had a significant impact on the appearance of our towns and villages and across the road network generally. I hope Members will welcome the restoration of the second grass cut in rural areas.  However, within the funding envelope available, it is not possible to reinstate five cuts per year in urban areas, although I note the welcome intervention of some councils to maintain grass in urban areas.
I am determined to ensure that my Department delivers an acceptable level of routine maintenance services, and I look forward to continuing positive engagement with Executive colleagues to secure the necessary funding.

Jo-Anne Dobson: I thank the Minister for his answer.  He will be aware that the issue has been raising, if he excuses the pun, growing concerns from motorists every year.  Does he agree with me that a closer working relationship between Transport NI and councils could lead to a better response to grass cutting next year?  Will he instigate that new working relationship?

Christopher Hazzard: To a large extent, there is work taking place behind the scenes between my Department and other agencies to look after grass cutting.  I know that councils sometimes get involved in the amenity areas, and that is something I am more than happy to look at and to extend in the future.

Mervyn Storey: I welcome the Minister to his first Question Time.  This proves that being a member of the Education Committee is very advantageous.
The Minister will be well aware of the concerns that have been raised about grass cutting.  Given the collaboration there is with local farmers on gritting in the wintertime, where they are used as a means of delivering a service, will the Minister consider expanding that relationship to grass cutting?  They could become a valuable asset to the rural community, freeing up the facility to ensure that the urban network is maintained in a way that is safe and is returned to how we would like to see it.

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his supplementary and, indeed, for his good stewardship of the Education Committee while he was Chair.
Yes, absolutely, I am very prepared to work with anybody who can help us with this.  We know that the farming and rural community came to our great aid during the recent winter storms, when snow blighted areas such as mine in south Down.  Farmers came to the rescue when they were needed.  I know I am due to meet farming representatives over the next few months, and that will certainly be on the agenda.

Jennifer McCann: I also welcome the Minister to his first Question Time.  I know that grass cutting has been a big issue in urban and rural areas, but will he outline the effect June monitoring will have on all areas of road maintenance?  Does he believe that cross-departmental working would help?

Christopher Hazzard: As a result of the outcome of June monitoring, Transport NI has been allocated £5 million to enhance routine maintenance services in a number of areas.  Not only will a second grass cut happen everywhere, despite the fact that it happened only once last year and not at all the year before, but the majority of potholes will now be repaired and the renewal of road markings will be accelerated.  An additional gully clean will be programmed in all urban areas, and the repair of street lighting outages will continue well past the autumn.  Weed spraying, none of which was done last year, will also begin again this year.

Chris Lyttle: I thank the Minister for his update.  What impact will the additional finance secured by his Department have on grass cutting in our capital city — the Belfast City Council area?

Christopher Hazzard: As I outlined to Members who asked questions previously, the additional finances will enable us to have a second cut right across the network, which includes the capital city, as the Member put it.

Knockmore Rail Line

David Ford: 7. Mr Ford asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline the progress made on reopening the Knockmore rail line to create a spur to Belfast International Airport (AQO 139/16-21)

Christopher Hazzard: The priorities for investment in our rail network over the next 20 years are contained in the railway investment prioritisation strategy, which was consulted on and published in 2014.  While the strategy contains a commitment to explore the potential for establishing a rail link to Belfast International Airport, it was estimated that annual passenger numbers would need to rise to around 10 million to make a rail link economically viable and enable the provision of a regular and frequent service.  Passenger numbers throughout 2015 totalled 4·4 million.  A network utilisation strategy developed by Translink more recently sets a detailed, costed timetable of potential investment that reflects that strategic decision.  The document identifies possible future new network connections, including reopening the line between Antrim and Knockmore via Crumlin.  However, the document suggests that reopening the line is considered a long-term option only.

David Ford: I also welcome the Minister to his first Question Time, and I thank him for his response.  Given that it is now in excess of 20 years since I discussed the reopening of the Knockmore line with a senior Translink engineer, is there any hope for my constituents in Crumlin and Glenavy that they will see something a bit more satisfactory than the 109A bus service, even if it were done on a limited and experimental basis using the existing line?

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his supplementary question and his welcome words.  To reopen services on the Knockmore-Antrim line, Translink would need to completely re-signal the line, re-rail it with continuous welded rail, upgrade 23 user work crossings, completely refurbish the halts and, depending on the timetable operated, potentially reinstate a passing loop.  It is difficult to cost that work without undertaking a full feasibility study.  However, provisionally, Translink estimates that the cost would be in the region of £100 million.  Without the relevant passenger numbers, I do not know that that would reflect best value for money.

Fra McCann: I think that the Minister has partially answered the question that I was going to ask.  Does he foresee a time when a rail link to Belfast International Airport will become viable?

Christopher Hazzard: As I outlined to Mr Ford, the onus has to be on increasing the passenger capacity of the rail network before we can look at reopening the line.

Mark Durkan: I am sure that the Minister appreciates the importance of rail connectivity with our airports in developing our economy through business and tourism.  In light of that, does the Minister have any plans to look at the prospect of establishing a rail halt at City of Derry Airport?

Christopher Hazzard: It would be remiss of me not to consider it in the future now that the Member has raised it, but we should break away from the notion that, to be successful, we need to have a rail halt at an airport.  Dublin Airport has expanded massively in recent years and is a good success, but it does not have a rail halt.  Public transport is very important.  Translink has a strong bus network that services many of our airports.  If passenger numbers remain as they are, that is probably the best way forward for now.

Mr Speaker: I remind Members that, when the initial question is constituency-specific, it is incumbent on Members to keep their supplementary questions pertinent to that constituency question.
Ms Gildernew is not in her place.

Coastal Erosion: Strangford

Jonathan Bell: 9. Mr Bell asked the Minister for Infrastructure for his assessment of coastal erosion in Strangford. (AQO 141/16-21)

Christopher Hazzard: I am very aware of the issues relating to coastal erosion and coastal management not just in the Strangford constituency but across the whole coastline of the North.  There is clearly a need to tackle the issues in a more strategic way than has been the case up to now, and I will play my part to help to achieve that.  I commend the work of the Ards peninsula coastal erosion group in the Member's constituency in raising the profile of those important issues.
I can advise the Member that Transport NI has recently carried out a survey of the Ards peninsula coastline to assess the impact of coastal erosion on sea walls and verges adjacent to the carriageway.  While the results of that survey have not yet been finalised, it is anticipated that they will provide a clearer picture of the extent of the investment required to carry out proactive repairs to prevent incidents such as road collapses in the future.
The survey will help to inform the necessary financial planning and prioritisation of the required works.

Jonathan Bell: I welcome the Minister to his post and welcome his interest and positive comments about the Ards group that is looking at the issue, along with many other individuals.
Will the Minister give us an idea of when that survey will be finalised and when he will be in a position to come to the House with a timeline and an action plan to address it?

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his kind remarks.  I do not know when the survey will be complete; I expect it will be later this year.  It is something that, as a Member for South Down and someone who has worked on enhancing and protecting our coastline, I will take very seriously.  I have had initial discussions with the Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Michelle McIlveen, a constituency colleague of yours from that part of the world.  It is something that we are keen to work on together as coastal erosion and the need for innovative and strategic solutions become a bigger problem every day.

Kellie Armstrong: Thank you, Minister, for your positive remarks.  As far as I am aware, the survey was a road survey, and I think that there were 68 or 69 points in it indicating problems that needed to be addressed.  Coastal erosion is more about maintenance and preventative measures on a long-term basis.  Will that be taken into consideration in the survey?

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for her interest and work on the issue; I know that it is close to her heart.  I guarantee that, if those issues are not included in the survey, I will certainly  want to look at them afterwards.  As I have previously outlined, innovative solutions will have to be a part of this.  There are research and development projects into how, for example, tyres can be used to offset coastal erosion. Planting specific plants along our coastline can also play a very important role.  If those solutions are not included in the survey, it is a piece of work that I will be keen to do afterwards.

Street Lighting Maintenance

Roy Beggs: 10. Mr Beggs asked the Minister for Infrastructure how much of the funding received through the June monitoring round will be allocated to street lighting maintenance. (AQO 142/16-21)

Christopher Hazzard: I have allocated £0·5 million of the additional resource funding that my Department received in the June monitoring round to bolster my Department’s street lighting maintenance service.  The new allocation is in addition to the initial £1 million budget that had already been allocated for routine street lighting maintenance in 2016-17.  In street lighting, routine maintenance covers activities such as the repair of outages, underground cable faults and safety defects.  At present, a full street lighting maintenance service is being provided.  Repairs are being carried out as normal by the Department’s external contractors and by Transport NI’s in-house operation and maintenance staff.

Roy Beggs: Maintenance is a basic issue that is often required to maintain road safety.  Will the Minister assure my constituents and me that the maintenance of street lighting will be part of his initial budget, guaranteeing that failing lights will be repaired, rather than having the Department continually seeking emergency funding in-year?

Christopher Hazzard: As I stated in my original answer, repairs are being carried out as normal.  In the last 12 months, my Department has received reports of 48,000 street light outages, of which 42,500 have already been repaired.  The number of street lights awaiting repair is approximately 2%, so we are operating a normal service.  Perhaps the Member should take stock of the improvements since his party colleague was in position, when the grass could not be cut and the street lights could not be kept on.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Alex Easton for a very quick question to the Minister.

Alex Easton: How long will it take to fix the backlog of street lights across Northern Ireland still to be fixed that the Minister mentioned?

Christopher Hazzard: As already outlined, this additional finance enables us to run a maintenance service up to the end of the year, when the 2% of street lighting will be dealt with in adequate time.

Mr Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions.  We now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Derry Railway Station

Colum Eastwood: T1. Mr Eastwood asked the Minister for Infrastructure, after congratulating him and welcoming him to the House for his first Question Time, whether, although the Queen will travel by train to Bellarena tomorrow, she is not coming to Derry because of its dilapidated railway station. (AQT 106/16-21)

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his question and for his welcome.  He would need to get in touch with the Queen's diary secretary to find out why she is travelling to a particular place.

Colum Eastwood: Maybe he can give me her number.  I thank the Minister for his answer, I think, but he has not really addressed the fact that our railway station in Derry is in a dilapidated state.  I am, along with many other people, disappointed today that he has rejected the idea of a halt at City of Derry Airport.  Will he give some commitment that we will have, once and for all, a proper, fit-for-purpose railway station at the old Waterside site?

Christopher Hazzard: I will, perhaps, correct the Member: I did not reject the idea of a halt at City of Derry Airport; I said that it would be remiss of me if I did not look into it.  Hansard will correct the Member on that.  My Department remains in negotiations over the purchase of a site, and it would be remiss of me, as Minister, to come down in favour of one site or the other when negotiations are ongoing.  I remain committed to the transformation of the transport network in the north-west.  We will see a 21st-century transport hub develop in Derry, and I am committed to that, despite the fact that the recent Brexit vote makes investment in a lot of our projects across the North that little bit more difficult.  On my watch, a transport hub in Derry remains a priority.

Pothole Claims:  Rural Roads

Paul Girvan: T2. Mr Girvan asked the Minister for Infrastructure how much his Department is paying out for claims for damage caused by potholes on rural roads, albeit that he appreciates that money was allocated in the June monitoring round to deal with road maintenance. (AQT 107/16-21)

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his question. I do not have that detail in front of me.  Due to the economic situation in recent years, our resource budgets — certainly for maintenance — have not been what we wanted.  There is no doubt that claims are higher than we want to pay.  The Member mentioned rural roads in particular, and, since coming into post, I have focused on the need to look at the rural road network.  I hope that that can be addressed with an initiative in the very near future.

Paul Girvan: I appreciate that I am a great believer that "A stitch in time can sometimes save nine".  If it is identified that we spend a large percentage of our budget on paying out claims, will there be an opportunity to reprofile next year's budget to ensure that a greater emphasis is put on maintenance as opposed to claims?

Christopher Hazzard: The Member is right: while money is needed for road safety concerns, investing it in fixing potholes is not the best way to spend it.  "A stitch in time" is definitely the best way of looking at the issue.  If we can, in any way, increase not just road maintenance but road resurfacing in a more strategic fashion right across our network, including our rural roads, that will be of benefit to us all.

Climate Change:  Coastal Lines

Gerry Carroll: T3. Mr Carroll asked the Minister for Infrastructure whether he agrees that the real danger posed by climate change represents a big threat to our environment, including the coastal lines, and, if so, whether he shares the concerns of many about our coastal lines. (AQT 108/16-21)

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his question.  I have spoken to officials about this since coming into post, and I share the Member's concerns.  I am not up to date with all the science in this regard, but, despite the fact that the sea level is rising incrementally around Ireland, it is the case that the earth's crust is also slightly rising, which is perhaps buying us time.  Whether in Belfast or the west of Ireland, this is an issue that we need to grapple with and that the Executive and the Assembly need to take control of, and we need to do so in a more strategic fashion.

Gerry Carroll: I thank the Minister for his response.  Does he agree that the fact that there is not one body that is responsible for monitoring coastline erosion is deeply worrying, given the scale of the risks mentioned and the danger that this represents?  Does he support the call and will he take necessary steps to ensure that a single organisation is set up that is tasked with caring for the coastline to ensure that the effects of erosion are monitored, managed and prevented?

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his supplementary question.  However, there is such an organisation.  It is something that the previous infrastructure Minister, Michelle McIlveen, kicked off; the coastal management forum.  I will have further discussions with her on that with regard to which Department takes the lead or has the greater focus.  I actually like the idea of the two Departments working together on this.  There are infrastructural concerns, but there are also environmental concerns.  I think that both Departments can come together and provide more strategic solutions to the problems.

Downpatrick Traffic Plan

Colin McGrath: T4. Mr McGrath asked the Minister for Infrastructure, after wishing him well in his first Question Time, what he and his Department have done to implement the Downpatrick traffic plan, given that residents have been waiting for many years, and to state whether there is a timescale for the plan’s implementation. (AQT 109/16-21)

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his question and indeed for his kind welcome.  I extend a welcome to the House to him.  I hope that, as two constituency MLAs, we can work together on a number of issues.
I was well aware of the need for the transportation study before I came into this post, but certainly, since my coming into post, it is something that has been on my desk.  As you will know, my Department commissioned consultants to review the numerous transport studies that have been carried out over the years for Downpatrick town centre, including the Down District Council's town master plan, and to advise the Department on the best way forward to manage traffic progression through the town.  This review has now been completed.  Transport NI has recently undertaken a full consultation process with key stakeholders and two public information events for the general public.  I am pleased to advise that all events attracted considerable interest, allowing the Department to fully engage with elected representatives and the public on the various traffic-management proposals currently being considered.  Full consideration is now being given to the key findings and recommendations of the report and also the feedback received at these events in order to decide how the Department should proceed with its plans to improve traffic progression and road safety in Downpatrick.

Colin McGrath: I thank the Minister for that answer.  I know that part of that plan was to see a resolution to the problems in Edward Street in Downpatrick and to deliver that resolution as part of the overall plan.  I ask him to give particular attention to that issue, which sees articulated lorries on the footpath as schoolchildren are trying to get into a primary school; a situation which cannot continue and needs to be resolved long before the implementation of this plan.

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his supplementary.  Indeed, he is right.  He will be well aware of the problem of HGVs not only in Edward Street but in Fountain Street.  Edward Street will be key to the solution going forward.  I would like to give the Member the assurance that this is a very important problem that I want to address in the years ahead.  Again, I am more than happy to meet him to discuss this in person.

A8:  Public Contracts Regulations 2006

Andy Allen: T5. Mr Allen asked the Minister for Infrastructure, after wishing him well for his time in office, to comment on the fact that, in light of the judgement in the court case into the award of the A8 tender in 2009, there has been a breach of regulation 30 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006. (AQT 110/16-21)

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his question and indeed his kind welcome.  My Department was disappointed with the outcome of that particular case, but I do not think that it is appropriate to say any more at this time.

Andy Allen: Thank you, Minister.  Clearly there is a serious issue.  The public needs assurance that, when a Department awards a major contract such as this, the procurement process must be fair and above board to ensure that the facts of the case are understood and any lessons are learned.  Will the Minister self-refer this case to the Northern Ireland Audit Office to investigate and report on it?

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his supplementary question.  Let me make it very clear:  if there are lessons to be learned in this regard, I will make sure that those lessons are learned for everybody involved.  I am more than confident in the Department's procurement processes.  I will look again at this issue with officials to see what can be gleaned in the short term so that long-term practices are what the public require.

Mr Speaker: Mr John O'Dowd is not in his place.

Flooding:  Fermanagh

Sean Lynch: T7. Mr Lynch asked the Minister for Infrastructure what, following the June monitoring round, he will do to fix the roads in Fermanagh, given that he will be aware that serious flooding happened in Fermanagh over the winter months, cutting off communities and damaging roads. (AQT 112/16-21)

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his question.  I am pleased to advise that funding has been allocated to my Department as part of the June monitoring round to enable five flooding relief schemes to be delivered in Fermanagh this financial year.  The five schemes are:  the B127 Newbridge Road, Lisnaskea; the B533 Wattlebridge Road, Newtownbutler, at Derrykerrib; the C436 Inishmore Road; the C444 Boho Road; and the U6525 Wellington Road.  The first three schemes are on key roads from one side of Lough Erne to the other.  The other two locations are routes prioritised on the basis of inconvenience caused.  The schemes are considered to deliver the greatest benefit to the wider community.
All schemes require an element of design, in particular the highest priority scheme on the B127 Newbridge Road, Lisnaskea, near the Share centre, where a piled reinforced concrete slab solution is now being developed.

Sean Lynch: Gabhaim buíochas as an fhreagra.  I thank the Minister and wish him well in his new post.  I know the roads that he talked about, and they have a major impact when they flood.  Does he have a timetable for when the work will begin?

Christopher Hazzard: Thank you for your supplementary question.  Access to land will be required in some cases, but, with a fair wind, I expect that works on the ground will be carried out in late summer and early autumn.

Mr Speaker: Mr Robbie Butler is not in his place.

Roadside Verges:  Grass Cutting

Trevor Clarke: T9. Mr Clarke asked the Minister for Infrastructure whether the June monitoring round, which allocated additional finance to his Department, will provide enough funding to address all the road safety issues related to cutting roadside verges. (AQT 114/16-21)

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his question.  It enables us to do a second cutting.  When road safety comes into view, if you excuse the pun, everything else is secondary.  Road safety is paramount for my Department.  While we are looking to do second cuttings, we will cut sight lines and pull them back when necessary as often as possible.

Trevor Clarke: I appreciate what the Minister said, but many areas have not had their first cut.  Will he outline when his Department is supposed to have its first cut finished before it goes on to the second one?  When will the weed spraying start?

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his supplementary.  It is thought that the first cut will be complete in the next few weeks.  We have had a period of very wet and hot weather, which provide perfect growing conditions and increase the amount of time that it takes to get around that.  As far as I am aware, the weed spraying will begin in the few short weeks ahead.

A5/A6:  Progression

Raymond McCartney: T10. Mr McCartney asked the Minister for Infrastructure, after welcoming him to his first Question Time, to outline how the A5 and A6 projects will be progressed, given his recent visit to Derry when he provided the chamber with an update on both schemes. (AQT 115/16-21)

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his question.  I very much enjoyed presenting to the Chamber of Commerce in Derry.  It was a very worthwhile venture to speak at and to give assurance to people of the north-west that they will remain a priority and that a priority of mine will be to address the infrastructural deficit west of the Bann.
As far as the A5 is concerned, in February 2016, the then DRD published draft statutory orders and a new environmental statement for the A5 scheme.  Draft vesting orders and a direction order were published for sections between New Buildings and Ballygawley.  The orders for the section between Ballygawley and the border at Aughnacloy are not being taken forward at this stage until we have confirmed details of the link with the N2 at the border.
Four public exhibitions on the scheme proposals were held in March 2016, with more than 1,000 registered attendees.  My Department also received almost 1,000 formal representations on the proposals.  A public inquiry to be administered by the Planning Appeals Commission is due to commence on 4 October.  The Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) has arranged a pre-inquiry meeting for this Wednesday, 29 June, in Omagh.  The PAC will report on the inquiry around May 2017.  Subject to successful completion of all the statutory processes and satisfactory outcome of the PAC inquiry, it is hoped that construction can begin in late 2017.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr McCartney for a quick supplementary and a quick answer from the Minister.

Raymond McCartney: I welcome the Minister's answer.  Is he satisfied that all the funding is in place to allow that project to go forward?

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his question.  As is the case in many Departments, funding is an issue that will constantly be on the table.  Whilst the A5 and A6 are not heavily reliant upon European funding, last week's decision will make funding a number of projects a lot more difficult for my Department.  I am content that the A5 and A6 are not reliant upon this scheme of money, and they certainly remain a priority for me and my Department in the years ahead.

John O'Dowd: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.  I would like to apologise to you and the House for not being present for topical questions.

Private Members' Business

United Kingdom Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate resumed on motion:
That this Assembly notes the result of the referendum on European Union membership; and calls on the Executive to set out, in the immediate future, their response to the consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. — [Mr Nesbitt.]

Alex Attwood: From where we sit, and in virtually all whom I spoke to over the weekend, there is a palpable sense of loss after the vote last week:  a sense of loss of place, of who we are and want to be; a sense of loss of influence and identity; and a loss of funds.  I say that because the bombastic approach taken by some in the DUP during the debate is in marked contrast with the scale of the decision last week and its consequences.  I hope that the bombastic approach of the few will be replaced by a more discerning approach by the many.  I hope that, even in the last hour or two, that has been better understood by the DUP.
There has been discussion about how nationalism has responded to the vote last week.  Speaking on behalf of those who have been democratic and nationalist, without apology and without exception over the last 45 years of the SDLP, we find the decision upsetting, game-changing and immense in its consequences.  Maybe that is quite natural, because the democratic nationalist tradition on this island, be it in the North or in the South, identified itself more as European.  We were more influenced by John Hume and his recognition that the European project was the biggest peace project in the western world, and we were more attached to the three strands of the Good Friday Agreement and its unspoken fourth strand of accommodating difference in the European context.
I think that there is a sense of loss, bewilderment, upset and even anger within nationalism and republicanism, but I sense that those feelings exist also, to some degree, within unionism.  The figures will confirm that a greater percentage pro rata of unionists in Northern Ireland voted to remain than the percentage of nationalists who voted to leave.  For all those reasons —

Lord Morrow: Nonsense.

Alex Attwood: Well, the figures will confirm that.  For all those reasons, the scale of what happened last week, in the politics and culture of this island, needs to be recognised.  That is not about a rush to a vote for a vote's sake on the existence of the border, which has been the approach of some in recent days.  It is to recognise that, because of last Thursday, the dynamic in the politics of this island and these islands is different from any time over the last 50 years.  In my view, the consequence of that — this is why I am hopeful and positive about the future — is that people will begin to reimagine a future different from the past and try to make the future bigger and bolder than the good that we achieved in the past.
I say, especially to the First Minister, that in the management of this issue over the next two years, the scale of this cannot be handled, as Mark Durkan put it to the Assembly group this morning, through the usual diplomatic channels.  The paradigm has changed, and it has changed utterly.  Those in the DUP and elsewhere in politics in the North, who want to put all their eggs in the Boris basket, will quickly learn how shallow a strategy that is.  That is why the SDLP again calls on the Irish Government to invite the parties in the North and the South to come together in a forum for the future —

Claire Hanna: Will the Member give way?

Alex Attwood: I will shortly.  That is why we call for a forum to recognise the paradigm shift that occurred last Thursday and to recognise that to rely on London in the next two years is a strategy of folly — thoughtless folly at that.  I will give way to the Member.

Claire Hanna: Does the Member agree that the protection of free movement on this island is paramount, not just for the 30,000 who cross the border every day but for businesses that trade in Ireland?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Alex Attwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker.  That is why the Irish Government should convene a forum for the future.  We need to recognise that those who, as Mark Durkan said, tailgate London as the road to the future, will realise that they have been left behind in some other place down that road.  Every time we rely on London, especially when it comes to money, in every negotiation with Blair and Brown or Cameron and Villiers, they have come up short.

Mervyn Storey: Will the Member give way?

Alex Attwood: I will give way in a second.
How much shorter will they be in this negotiation, given the trauma and fallout of what has happened?
Secondly, I ask the deputy First Minister how we will deal with the immediate consequences of what will happen — this is the next two years, it is not even beyond two years.  Higher inflation —

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Alex Attwood: — a revised downwards economic forecast, the fiscal surplus by 2019-2020 out the window, corporation tax in jeopardy, firms denied market access and —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Alex Attwood: — investment deferred.  How, in real time —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Alex Attwood: — in the real lives of people will we deal with all that?

Paula Bradshaw: Health is, without question, one of the areas that will be most negatively affected by the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union.  That is why it was so outrageous that the "Leave" campaign used the notion of redirecting £50 million per day from EU contributions to the NHS when it was clear that they had neither the intention nor the power to make that happen.
Even according to the "Leave" campaign's figures, Northern Ireland is a net beneficiary from the EU, and the economic damage that is already apparent in the withdrawal of investment, only this morning, demonstrates that that supposed extra money simply does not exist —

Mervyn Storey: Will the Member give way?

Paula Bradshaw: I will give way in a minute.
It does not exist, even at a UK level, in any case.  Yet, many of the people who voted to leave last Thursday to will have listened to that pledge and, more importantly, will have believed it.  It will have informed their choice.  Many of them will be very vulnerable and very reliant on the health and social care sector and will now feel very deceived by the political class, who, frankly, should have known better.
It is well documented that the most marginalised communities across the United Kingdom will be those most reliant on an effective and responsive health and social care sector.  People living with a long-term condition or those who care for them were led to believe that Brexit was an opportunity to invest in local services, to provide more appointments with GPs and to speed up surgical procedures.  As all in the House know, all politics is local, and some people will have naturally seen the referendum through that prism of being reliant on a well-resourced health sector.
Already, prominent "Leave" campaigners have admitted that that is simply not so.  The reality of leaving the EU, particularly if we are forced out of the single market, is that there will be a very significant impact on medical advancement through the end of EU-funded, EU-wide medical research projects in which academics and medical researchers share knowledge and resources to contribute to the advancement of less-intrusive screening, quicker diagnoses, and the discovery of treatments and medical equipment that improve prognoses for patients.  We will now be outside those processes, and it will cost us dearly, not just financially but in human costs, to avail ourselves of that research for local application.
I turn now to our nearest EU partner.  Thankfully, over the last few years, we have seen the emergence of mature political cooperation on the island of Ireland, nowhere more so than in healthcare.
There are now high-profile cross-border arrangements for children's cardiac surgery procedures, for example, that 25 children from Northern Ireland have benefited from since 2014, and there is the cross-border healthcare directive, which is an EU directive that allows people to avail themselves of services and programmes in other EU countries if they are not available in their own country.  For example, the Smarmore Castle Private Clinic has helped many individuals in Northern Ireland avail themselves of residential treatment for drug and alcohol addiction, which is a service that is not available here.  Those are just a few examples.
Most recently, the very high-profile expert panel, which is led by Professor Bengoa, told us, as I suppose he told all parties, that he is holding meetings with the Health Department in the Republic of Ireland to see where both of us can look at aligning all-Ireland reform of our neighbouring health and social care sectors.  We both have finite resources and see that strong cross-community cooperation is vital.
The question now for the Executive is this:  what is the contingency plan to ensure that that cross-border cooperation can continue to ensure that Northern Ireland's health and social care sector can access the latest medical research and avoid being forced to withdraw from a single market against the will of the majority of people in Northern Ireland?  I emphasise to the House that it would be the height of irresponsibility if the Executive have no such plan in place.

Steven Agnew: I went to bed at around midnight on Thursday night listening to Nigel Farage effectively give up the ghost and accept that the vote was going against him.  I woke up at 4.00 am to see Nigel Farage on the TV again making his victory speech.  I have to say that it has been one of the most sickening experiences I have had since I got involved and interested in politics.  That is a very emotional response.  It is not what is important, but I think it speaks to a lot of this campaign.  It has been emotional; it has been emotive.
I also think it has put together strange bedfellows.  The "Leave" campaign consisted of what was, on the one hand, the far right, and on the other hand, the far left, united in a campaign to leave the EU.  Already we have seen the numerous claims tumble.  The £350 million a week that we were supposed to save by leaving the EU was a blatant lie, and those in the "Leave" campaign admit now that that was the case.  They said we could spend that money on the NHS.  They were clever in their choice of words; they said "could", not "will", but it was a clear and intentional deception.

Naomi Long: Will the Member give way?

Steven Agnew: In one second I will.  Then they talked of control of our borders.  There was the idea of a fortress UK, and at the same time they told us here in Northern Ireland that we did not need to worry about border controls.

Naomi Long: I thank the Member for giving way.  On his point about the choice of words in particular, does he agree that it went beyond a careful choice of words when it said on the poster, "Let's" spend it on the NHS, not, "We might" or, "We could"?  It is quite a serious thing in an election or referendum campaign to blatantly lie about how money will be spent.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Steven Agnew: I thank the Member for her intervention.  I completely agree with her that it was a deception.  When we have such a close result, there are questions to be asked about how much people, already and still today, stand over the vote to leave.  It is clear in Northern Ireland that we did not vote to leave.  I think that presents a challenge to our First Minister, because, whilst the Prime Minister announced his resignation because he did not get the vote he campaigned for, it is clear that our First Minister did not get the vote she campaigned for.  Going forward, we need to ask whether the First Minister will represent the people in Northern Ireland.  We are going to have negotiations —

A Member: Will the Member take a point?

Steven Agnew: I have given way, and my time is running out.  We are going to have negotiations about how this will affect Northern Ireland.  Will she represent the 56% in Northern Ireland who voted to remain?  Will she ensure that her colleagues in the "Leave" campaign meet their commitments that there will be more spending on public services in Northern Ireland as a result, and that there will not be stricter controls on the Irish border?
One of the startling things for me about the response was the number of people who said to me they had sentiments along the lines of, "I went to bed on Thursday as a constitutional unionist.  I woke up on Friday as a nationalist".  I think that the degree of instability that this vote has thrown up —
[Laughter.]
Members may laugh, and it is shocking that people are saying that, but it is what I am hearing.  We have seen the evidence, and we have seen Ian Paisley MP talking about people coming to him for an Irish passport.  I have certainly seen people come to me for Irish passports.  That may be a practical measure rather than an emotional one, but I think that it is part of the indication of the instability —

Lord Morrow: Will the Member give way?

Steven Agnew: I have said that I will not give way at this point.
I think that it is part of the indication of the instability that this vote has thrown up.
We need to act with clarity, calmness and caution.  We are going to have a new Prime Minister, and there is a possibility that we could have a new general election.  We need our First Minister acting on our behalf.  What we do not need is a First Minister for unionism or a First Minister who puts first being leader of the DUP.  What we need is a First Minister who will represent the people of Northern Ireland, who said that they wish to remain, and we need her to take that argument in the negotiations going forward in the days, weeks, months and, indeed, possibly years that are ahead of us.

Eamonn McCann: Let me deal first with the nonsense that was talked earlier today in the Chamber about people on the left who advised a vote to leave — that such people must be in alignment with and supporting Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and the rest of that crew across the water.  That is absolutely untrue.  People Before Profit is quite able to articulate its own particular position, which is different from that of Boris Johnson and is also different from that of the leadership of the "Remain" side.  Some years ago, I was active in a referendum in the South —

Naomi Long: I thank the Member for giving way.  He said that he can articulate a position that is different to Boris Johnson's.  Can he deliver it?

Eamonn McCann: I will articulate it now and explain how we propose to deliver it.  If you had waited a few minutes, you would not have had to jump to your feet and ask the question.
[Laughter.]
I fully intended to do that.  Yes, I will.  It is an obvious question, and it is in my mind too.  You do not have to invite me to do it.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Eamonn McCann: Thank you very much.  That is great.
People Before Profit has always rejected — I have always rejected — the European Union.  We reject it now because we reject the rottenness that the EU represents.  If you want to know the true nature of the EU, just look back a year.  We heard an awful lot of the argument that leaving the EU will threaten spending on community projects, destroy jobs, destroy wages, destroy infrastructure and all the rest of it.  Will it, indeed?  If you worried about that in the referendum, look back to what the EU did to Greece, when the Greek people in a referendum voted to reject the austerity policies of the European Union.

Claire Hanna: Will the Member give way?

Eamonn McCann: Yes indeed.

Claire Hanna: Does the Member acknowledge that the people of Greece, with respect to the Government in Greece, made very poor domestic decisions?  Does the Member acknowledge that the ratepayers and taxpayers across Europe had an entitlement to not keep paying the bailout money?

Eamonn McCann: So much for the lady's commitment to democracy.  Do I agree that the Greek people voted in a stupid way?  That is what she is asking.  It does not matter how the people in the cradle of democracy voted.  That was the clear implication of your question; of course it was.
The EU rejected that referendum result precisely because it wanted to impose austerity, it wanted the Greek Government to cut social spending and it wanted funding withdrawn from all sorts of community groups.

Christopher Stalford: Will the Member give way?

Eamonn McCann: No, thanks.
In other words, they wanted to do all of the things that some people in this House are now claiming that we could not do if we left the EU.
They should consider the words of Walter Scott:
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
 When first we practise to deceive!"
And they were deceiving.  So was the "Remain" camp, and the "Out" camp across the border.

Stewart Dickson: The Member suggests that the European Union was a tangled web to deceive.  Was it deceiving when it gave women rights?  Was it deceiving when it gave us environmental rights?  Was it deceiving when it gave us employment rights?  Was it deceiving when it saved refugees?  No, it was not.
[Interruption.]

Eamonn McCann: I will start at the end:  the EU saving refugees?  It has erected barbed wire barricades around fortress Europe.  Somebody referred to fortress UK and immigrants.  The main fortress being erected in Europe is in the European Union.  Not only do we have barbed wire fences around the edges of it, we have barbed wire fences within it to stop the movement of people who do not qualify.  Around the borders of Hungary and in Serbia and Slovenia, you see barbed wire fences.
This is not an organisation that is pulling people together in a benign way.  It is dividing people; it is racist.  The agreement made between the EU and Turkey was, "You take one back, and we'll send one over".  That is treating human beings like commodities to be swapped in a barter market.  What a disgusting and disgraceful thing to do.  Why is it that not a mention of that has been made?
People here talk about the EU and give the impression that it is a benign organisation that has the interests of ordinary people in this country or anywhere else at heart.  They are out talking, rightly so, about the need to go to Dublin and talk to the Dublin Government.  Anybody remember what happened in the South of Ireland when the European Commission disapproved of what the elected Irish Government were doing?  They were told by the European Commission, "Do what you're told or — the quote was — 'a bomb will go off in Dublin'".  That is what they were told.  Not an explosive device, presumably, but a financial and economic bomb threatened them.
Now, so many people in Dublin are praising the EU that they seem to be suffering from Stockholm syndrome.  There were times over the past few days watching the football when I thought that I was transferring my allegiance from one day to another from the occupied Six Counties to the occupied Twenty-six Counties.
[Interruption.]
One hundred years after 1916, national independence, how are you?  The European Union will not stand for national independence in any sense at all.  It is an oppressive body.
Who is the European Commission answerable to?  Does anybody here know?  I will tell you:  it is answerable to the bankers; that is in whose interests it has operated throughout the period of austerity.  It is answerable to the more belligerent sections of the European bourgeoisie; it is not answerable to anybody else.  Nobody elected it.
Of course, the British Commissioner resigned on Friday.  Anybody know who he was?

Some Members: Lord Hill.

Eamonn McCann: Lord Hill was the man.  How many people are aware of Lord Hill?
[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Eamonn McCann: Sorry?

Mr Speaker: Conclude your remarks.

Eamonn McCann: You did give me that extra minute, you know.
[Laughter.]
I will end with this, on the question of Scotland and Northern Ireland —

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Jim Allister.

Eamonn McCann: OK, I will leave it, but I have more to say in some other place.
[Interruption.]

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: Mr Allister, you have up to four minutes in which to speak, including interventions.

Jim Allister: What a broad and appealing church the "Leave" campaign was.
[Laughter.]
The 23 June 2016 will go down in our wonderful history as the day that the United Kingdom shook off the shackles of the decomposing EU and began its rebirth as an independent nation, outward-looking to the rest of the world, taking our trade where the growth is, deciding to spend our own money on our own people, and deciding to control our own borders.  The 23 June was the day when this country turned itself around to face in the right direction.
It is sad today that the bad losers of the "Remain" campaign could not face the future.  All they could do was re-fight the battle that they have lost and try to tear down our country even more in the doing of that.  The worst point of that came from the leader of the SDLP, a party that lectures us all on the purity of its commitment to democracy, but who told us today that he does not accept the result.  The result is emphatically clear.  The question was emphatically clear.  It was not, "Does Northern Ireland want to stay in Europe?", but, "Does the United Kingdom want to stay in Europe?"  Yes, it is interesting to know what the component parts of the United Kingdom thought about the question; but that is not the definitive outcome.  The definitive, autonomous vote was that of the entire United Kingdom.  It is that which those who refuse to accept the outcome of the referendum are rejecting — the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.  They cling, in their little minds, to some little part of the United Kingdom.  Some were never so attached to the entity of Northern Ireland, never so respectful of the views of the people of Northern Ireland.  However, it is the people of the United Kingdom who have made this decision.  We joined the EU as one nation, and we leave the EU as one nation.  That is how it must be.
There are many challenges for the First Minister and many things to do, among them identifying the opportunities.  We now need a programme across Departments identifying what regulations and directives imposed upon us by the dead hand of Brussels can now safely, properly and swiftly be repealed.  There also needs to be a programme to identify how we will cope with new powers.  Is it not ironic that some who, week in and week out, bleat for more powers for the House are now amazed and disturbed that, in consequence of leaving the EU, we will have more powers for the devolved Assembly, powers over fishing, agriculture, the environment —

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Jim Allister: Yes, the First Minister has a job to do, and it is to identify how we exercise these powers and make a bonfire of hideous regulations.

Mr Speaker: I call on the First Minister to respond to the debate.  She has up to 30 minutes.

Arlene Foster: Thank you, Mr Speaker.  I do not think that I will need 30 minutes.  I am responding on behalf of the Executive.  This has been agreed with the deputy First Minister.
Following the outcome of the referendum, the deputy First Minister and I will act to represent the best interests of Northern Ireland.  Until such times as new arrangements are negotiated and take effect, we want to make it clear that business continues as usual and that normal arrangements for the flow of goods and services and travel remain in place.
We assure citizens from other European Union countries living here that we value and recognise the contribution they make to our society; I have already indicated that in response to a question from Mr Maskey earlier today, but it is important to underline the point.
The priority of the Executive will be to ensure that Northern Ireland's interests are protected and advanced and that new opportunities are developed as part of any arrangements with the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland as well as with other European neighbours.  We will seek to work with Executive colleagues to plan for the new realities and maximise the benefits to Northern Ireland of this changed situation.
The deputy First Minister and I were elected with a huge mandate to work for our people, and we remain determined to do so.  We have a window of opportunity in the coming months to ensure that we do all we can to deliver the best possible outcome for all our people.
We have already spoken to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.  The deputy First Minister and I have also requested an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister in the coming weeks to discuss matters further.  We will meet with the Irish Prime Minister, Enda Kenny, next Monday to commence discussions on the nature of our relationship going forward.  Executive Ministers have been in contact with one another throughout the weekend and over the course of today, and a full meeting of the Executive will take place on Wednesday, at which the main discussion point will be how we deliver the best possible outcomes for Northern Ireland.
Sir Malcolm McKibbin, as head of the Civil Service, has also held formal discussions with his UK counterpart this afternoon, and we have asked the head of the Civil Service to establish individual departmental teams at senior level and to put in place an overarching central administrative and political governance structure, as well as formal east-west, North/South and EU liaison teams that will report directly to me and the deputy First Minister.  Each Department will establish a senior team to consider the potential implication for their departmental functions, legislation and regulations, as well as identifying future challenges and opportunities.  Those teams will liaise with Whitehall, Irish and EU counterparts to ensure that we get the best possible deal that we can for Northern Ireland.
For our part, as leaders of the Executive, we are agreed and determined that our specific circumstances in Northern Ireland must be accounted for in any new arrangements that are developed.
The chief executive of Invest Northern Ireland is, this week, in the United States and will establish a liaison group with the business community in Northern Ireland.  In foreign direct investment, we almost exclusively target cost-centre opportunities, as we do not yet have a tax profit advantage, something that we hope to have in the future.  Cost centres are mainly offshore services centres for their parent operations, and the majority of them are based in the United States of America or GB, so market access is not an issue for them.
You will know that our proposition majors on two key factors, talent and cost, and those have not changed.  We expect to continue to drive forward on foreign direct investment.  If you consider the list of FDI successes over the past five years — Allstate, Concentrix, Alexander Mann, Deloitte, PwC, EY, CME Group, WhiteHat Security, Capita, Cayan, Baker McKenzie, Allen and Overy, Herbert Smith Freehills, and Teleperformance to name but a few — you find that they are all servicing either the United States of America or the United Kingdom.
Sir Malcolm McKibbin will also travel to Brussels later this week to meet our Members of the European Parliament and British, Irish and European Union representatives, as well as meeting senior Whitehall representation next week in London.  Representatives from our three international offices in Brussels, Washington and Beijing will consider implications from their perspectives and provide briefings to us shortly.
We are determined to use our influence to build for the future, provide stable leadership at home and reassure those concerned that Northern Ireland will continue to be an excellent place to do business.  The coming weeks and months will, I have no doubt, present many challenges both to the deputy First Minister and myself.  However, we have both made it clear that, whatever the outcome of the referendum, we would work to do what was right for the people of Northern Ireland.  We said that before the referendum.  We told the Committee that that would be our position.  Our position has not changed.  We will continue to work for all the citizens of Northern Ireland and that is our clear mandate.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr David Ford to make a winding-up speech on the debate.

David Ford: We are currently facing the biggest crisis in the United Kingdom since at least 1945.  It is a political crisis, at least as far as it affects the two largest parties at Westminster; and it is an economic, financial, institutional and constitutional crisis.  The decision that was taken last Thursday affects every part of the UK, and yet there are specific issues for Scotland and Northern Ireland that need to be addressed in a separate and distinctive way.
The issue highlighted just now by Mr Allister, about repealing European legislation, is one that may well come to this House.  Mr Allister and his friends — well, his current friends on the DUP Benches — may find that they will have difficulty in getting a majority to repeal some aspects of European legislation that some of us would support.  So it is not half as simple, or simplistic, as has been presented by some speaking in the debate.

Jim Allister: Will the Member give way?

David Ford: I will give way later.  In opening the debate, Mr Nesbitt highlighted a few key points.  He talked about the issue of corporation tax; and there is a fundamental issue, on the basis of what has just been said by Mrs Foster about skills and costs, whether we could now afford corporation tax, if we are not to get the benefit of having the wider EU market to companies based here.
Mr Nesbitt also talked about issues like funding from the European Union, of which there was very little talk from those in favour of "Leave".  He referred to the potential consequences for the Barnett formula, with a potential change of track by the Government.  He referred to the common travel area, which is a very significant issue for those of us who live in Northern Ireland, especially those who live close to the border.  Those are key issues on which we await answers from those who led "Leave" nationally and locally.  Mr Eastwood and Mr Murphy talked about some of the benefits:  the Peace programme, INTERREG and the European social fund.  Those are key issues that need to be addressed but have not been properly covered.
We had some lectures from the DUP about democracy and accepting the will of the people expressed in the referendum.  I just wish that members of the DUP had accepted the views of a somewhat larger majority of the people of Northern Ireland in the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement or of an appropriate majority in Belfast City Hall on how often the Union flag should fly on that building.  Decisions that the DUP took led to mayhem on the streets and costs to this community of millions of pounds.  Let us be clear that accepting democracy cuts both ways.
Sixty per cent of those who contributed to the debate, more or less all of this corner except Mr McCann and Mr Allister, talked about the need for stability and certainty as we go into a very difficult future.  It is clear that the only bit of economics that we have seen from some people on the "Leave" campaign is their being very, very economical with the truth.  As highlighted by Naomi Long, it is clear that the reference to spending £350 million a week on the NHS was a complete fabrication that they retracted last Friday.  We now have the further back-pedalling that it is supposedly an aspiration.  It did not look like an aspiration on the posters and the bus.

Edwin Poots: Will the Member give way?

David Ford: I think that we have had enough from your side of the House, thank you.
Some very specific issues show the inadequacy of what was said there.  We have had an admission that the so-called immediate controls on immigration simply could not work if we are seeking to maintain access to the market.  Funnily enough, that truth came out from some of the "Leave" campaign only last Friday.  Philip Smith highlighted the work done by the governor of the Bank of England to provide stability in the financial markets, but we do not actually have a quarter of a trillion pounds every week to prop up sterling.  That is the kind of issue that came up, yet when some of us talked about the dangers to finances and the UK economy, we were accused of scaremongering.  We were absolutely right in what we said on that, and those who said that we were scaremongering have been proven to be absolutely wrong.
We have had a litany of "Keep calm" messages from the DUP Benches today.  Frankly, Corporal Jones should have been in the Chamber.  The messages were delivered with slightly greater calmness than Corporal Jones would have delivered them, but they were complete nonsense because it is clear that the "Leave" campaign nationally had no plan A if it won and the "Leave" campaign in Northern Ireland had no plan A as to what to do with it.  We have had hopes, wishes and aspirations from the DUP Benches.  We have had nothing of substance.  I would prefer to go on the basis of what the governor of the Bank of England says about the future of the UK economy than the pious aspirations that have been expressed by those who wished to leave.
We have also had patronising references to "little people" coming from the DUP Benches.  On the "Remain" side, we did not talk like that, but that is the way that they have patronised the people.  I suspect that, when some of the decent people who believed the stories told by the "Leave" campaign see what it actually means, they might change things.  This was not the little people.  This was a fight about the future leadership of the Tory Party, with all the problems that that involves.  Those who are wishing to draw a pension in the near future will have real difficulties because of economic uncertainty.  They will realise that straight away.  Our students studying or hoping to study on things like the ERASMUS programme across the EU will also see problems.  Mr Beggs highlighted the significant drop in the exchange rate to £1 equalling €1·20.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Kennedy] in the Chair)
Steve Aiken talked about the cut in potential foreign direct investment, but, in fact, we have already seen 1,000 financial services jobs moving from London to Paris.  If jobs are moving from London to Paris, who is to say that they are not going to move from Belfast to Dublin as well?  It is not a cut in potential future investment; it is a loss of past investment.  The First Minister has just highlighted a number of companies as successes.  How much of a success will it be if those companies relocate to the EU over the next two, three or four years?
It is simply not correct to say that we are in a state of business as usual, because business is adapting a lot more quickly than the politicians who led the "Leave" campaign.
Patsy McGlone highlighted a key issue — the peace process.  It is an important issue: how peace was established between France and Germany, the expansion to central and eastern Europe a decade ago and the support for our peace process.  None of us on our side of the argument talked about World War III, but the "Leavers" suggested that we did and got away with another bit of misinformation.
Some have aspirations similar to the vision expounded by Eamonn McCann.  Despite the challenge by Naomi Long, he gave us a wonderful socialist vision, but he told us nothing about putting that vision into practice.
I have a little recent knowledge of justice issues, and I know that we have major problems now.  We will lose the European arrest warrant (EAW) and have no certainty about how we could reinstate something like that.  The previous legislation in the Republic has gone and is no longer available to Northern Ireland.  That is just a casual thing, because it is all about asserting our sovereignty, but, if we do not get something like the EAW back, some people will be very sore.  Where are we on cooperation with Eurojust and Europol, on sharing information about justice and on asset seizures?  These are all key matters that were lost by the vote last week and to which the "Leavers" gave no thought and, at this stage, have no answers.
The motion highlights a series of questions, and I will briefly put a few of them across the Departments.  The Executive Office needs to give us a clear statement on the position of citizens from elsewhere in the EU working in Northern Ireland.  The Department of Justice, as I said, needs to talk about issues such as shared intelligence and European arrest warrants. The Economy Department needs to talk about how we will maintain free movement of labour, particularly for those who cross the border regularly.  We need to look at whether we will still get access to R&D funding under Horizon 2020 or student exchanges.  The Department of Finance really needs to do detailed work on the impact of a potential reduction in corporation tax, and the Infrastructure Department needs to see what is happening to things like the York Street interchange and the A6.  The Department for Communities will have a massive obligation to make up European funding for voluntary and community groups and housing associations. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs does not know what will happen after the loss of CAP funding.  The Department of Health, as Paula Bradshaw said, has issues around medical research, cooperation and the massive numbers of workers in health and social care from across the EU. The Department of Education needs to provide assurances to the young people who, at this stage, are hopeful of going further in the future.
There are key issues — massive issues — that need to be addressed, but they simply have not been covered.  The challenges are real, and there is no point in people behaving like ostriches.  The First Minister and deputy First Minister have an obligation to represent all of Northern Ireland, including the majority of us who voted "Remain".  The UK is now a very divided society.  It is up to the First Minister and deputy First Minister to supply a coherent negotiating team for the benefit of all of Northern Ireland, and the First Minister must live up to the promise that she has made.
Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:
That this Assembly notes the result of the referendum on European Union membership; and calls on the Executive to set out, in the immediate future, their response to the consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. — [Mr Ford.]

Assembly Business

Committee of the Regions:  Membership

Danny Kennedy: As with similar motions, this will be treated as a business motion, and there will be no debate.
Resolved:
That this Assembly nominates Mr Declan McAleer as a full member, and Mr Colin McGrath as an alternate member, on the UK delegation to the Committee of the Regions. — [Ms Ní Chuilín.]

Executive Committee Business

Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4):  Suspension

Danny Kennedy: I call the Minister of Finance to move the motion.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: I beg to move
That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 27 June 2016.

Danny Kennedy: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.  I ask the Minister to speak to the motion.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: I beg to move
That the Budget (No. 2) Bill [NIA Bill 1/16-21] do now pass.
The passing of the Final Stage of the Budget Bill will facilitate legislative cover for Departments and other public bodies to deliver services in this financial year.  I emphasise again the critical importance of the legislation completing its passage through the Assembly.
The Budget Bill is written to the Executive’s agreed Budget for 2016-17.  Therefore, the result of the referendum on exiting the European Union, which we have just debated for three hours, does not change that.  However, Members and the public will want to be assured —

Danny Kennedy: Order.  Minister, I ask you to resume your seat.  Procedurally, I need to go through a process.  I apologise to the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):
That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 27 June 2016.

Budget (No. 2) Bill:  Final Stage

Danny Kennedy: I now call on the Minister to move the Final Stage and open debate on the Bill.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: Thank you again, Mr Deputy Speaker. I beg to move
That the Budget (No. 2) Bill [NIA Bill 1/16-21] do now pass.
I will go back to where we were.  I wanted, as Finance Minister, to touch on the Brexit vote and give my reassurance to the public and the House that we are focusing resolutely on that crisis at this time. Like other Members, I want to emphasise that I will resolutely defend the interests of all our people across the North in the time ahead.
As Finance Minister, my plan prior to the referendum was to seek contingency papers from Department heads to prepare ourselves as best as possible for the fallout from the referendum.  On Friday afternoon, directors in the Department went through some of the key issues.  I thank all the officials in the Department of Finance who put their shoulder to the wheel on Friday and before that to ensure that we responded robustly but calmly to the aftershocks of the Brexit decision. I welcome the steps outlined by Mrs Foster on behalf of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to respond to Brexit.  I look forward to the necessary measures being taken to minimise the damage being caused by the crisis.
I am in no doubt that people are fearful of the consequences of Brexit.  That is why I took steps on Friday and over the weekend to assure potential investors and directors and, in particular, representatives of the Special EU Programmes Body, who, as you know, were worried about the decision.  I also spoke to the vice president of the European Investment Bank, Jonathan Taylor, and groups that are in receipt of EU funds.  I assured them that I would apply a firm hand to the wheel in the days and weeks ahead, and I look forward to meeting shortly the Special EU Programmes Body and senior representatives of business, the trade unions and social enterprises to discuss our response.
It was my intention to do this before the Brexit decision, but I will work closely with our colleagues in Scotland, where there was an unequivocal "Remain" vote.  In discussions with the Scottish Finance Minister, Derek Mackay, on Friday, I agreed to coordinate my approach closely with his.  I will meet Minister McKay on 11 July in Cardiff with the Finance Minister in Wales, Minister Drakeford. Similarly, the Irish Government have a pivotal role in defending the mandate to remain here and the interests of all the people here, and I have taken steps to contact the Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan, whom I met last week, and Minister Donohoe.  It is important that the Irish Government speak out firmly to protect our interests.
I want to say one thing before I move on to the core of the Budget discussions.  I want to address the young people who voted last week in overwhelming numbers to stay in Europe.  As they look to the future and assess the budgets and how this Government will proceed, I urge them to not be downhearted or forced from the path of creating a shared, diverse and prosperous society.  We have come too far on this journey to be diverted into a cul-de-sac of splendid isolation.  It is my intention to ensure that our young people are not denied the bounty of Europe any more than Europe should be denied the right to share this continent with them.
I urge them, therefore, to keep their head up in the time ahead.
I will now move on to the detail of the Budget (No. 2) Bill.  I have listened with interest to the debate over the last few weeks.  It is a debate that has covered many important issues:  issues that are relevant not only in the current financial year but for the future of all the people we represent.  I thank everyone who contributed to those debates, particularly the two lengthy debates we had two weeks ago.  I once again place on record my thanks to the Committee for Finance for its role in ensuring that the Bill could pass through the Assembly via accelerated passage.
It is worth emphasising again that the Bill approves the expenditure of Departments and other bodies for this financial year, 2016-17.  Members will no doubt be very interested in the impact the referendum result has had on those spending plans.  The Bill is written to the Executive's agreed Budget for 2016-17; therefore, the result of the referendum does not change it.
As we move into negotiations on the fiscal relationship with London, I will act resolutely to protect the interests of all our people.  I have taken steps to contact the Treasury, even since Thursday, on not only this Budget but future Budgets.  In the coming weeks, the Executive will be considering their Budget plans for future years.  I have no doubt that the impact of Brexit will then become clear, and we will respond accordingly.
Members will also be aware that the Bill is not the end of the legislative process for this year.  Irrespective of the referendum, there will be changes to departmental budgets agreed through the Executive's monitoring rounds.  Indeed, I was able to announce the outcome of the Executive's June monitoring round on 14 June, in which over £140 million of resource and over £29 million of capital were allocated.  The June monitoring changes and all other in-year changes will be reflected in the spring Supplementary Estimates, which will be brought to the Assembly in February.
When the Assembly debated the Bill's Second Stage two weeks ago, I made clear my ambition for the Executive to deliver over the new mandate.  The expenditure being approved in this Bill will see investment in high-quality public services and a commitment to oppose the austerity programme being driven by the Westminster Government.  I aim to work with all our local communities to create a prosperous, shared society and to help grow a stronger economy with opportunity for all.
I am proud that, as Minister for the new Department of Finance, I have the opportunity with the first Budget Bill of the mandate to signal that I will, of course, oppose austerity.  This country is not just an economy; it is a society made up of people, and each person has their own needs and ambitions.  We will grow the economy, not as an end in its own right but as a means of providing for all our people.
The Fresh Start Agreement represented a good start.  It provides significant additional funding in 2016-17.  In addition, the Executive agreed to set aside £135 million to top up the UK welfare arrangements.  Additional money was also provided for 'A Shared Future' for bodies to deal with the past, for shared and integrated education, and for shared housing.
I believe that this Budget will serve our people well.  I am proud that we are delivering the most generous welfare protection in these islands to ensure that the most vulnerable will be protected from the worst excesses of austerity.
I believe also that it is important not to forget the bigger picture.  The Budget (No. 2) Bill, which I hope Members will support again today, does not exist in a vacuum.  It is a critically important element of our financial cycle and the principal mechanism through which the Assembly can hold Departments to account for their expenditure.
I remind the House that behind the dry figures are the lives of the people we serve, as well as the schools, the hospitals, the community centres and the cultural centres.  To serve those people and to provide for our front-line services, it is essential that we move through this debate today and pass the Bill into law.  Every public service provided for under the authority of the Assembly is affected by the Bill and requires the legislation to operate legally in this financial year.  With that in mind, I ask Members to support the legislation and pass the Final Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

Emma Pengelly: I will speak first in my role as Chair of the Finance Committee.  As outlined, the Bill makes provision for the balance of cash and resources required to reflect the departmental spending plans in the 2016-17 Main Estimates.  As I indicated in previous debates, the Committee agreed, under Standing Order 42(2), to grant accelerated passage to the Budget (No. 2) Bill on the basis of it having been consulted appropriately on the Bill's expenditure provisions.
It is imperative that the Department meets that requirement for appropriate consultation on each occasion, given the importance of such Bills progressing through the Assembly before summer recess.
At its meeting last week, the Committee agreed that Assembly and departmental officials should follow up on the work undertaken in relation to the memorandum of understanding, which will, if implemented, provide opportunities for Statutory Committees to engage with their respective Departments for the forthcoming multi-year Budget at appropriate stages in the process.  The public expenditure envelope is, as we know, constrained.  Therefore, for those successive years, Departments will need to ensure that every penny of public money is maximised in order to efficiently deliver the level and quality of public services expected by those whom we have been elected to represent.
There will, no doubt, be many challenges ahead, some of which will be unprecedented.  In that regard, speaking on the Committee's behalf, I am confident that, as we progress, a positive, constructive and productive working relationship will develop with the Department.  It is my hope that the Committee will assist and support the development of improved policy and better legislation, while continuing to fulfil a valuable scrutiny and advisory role.
As I draw my remarks to a close in my capacity as Chairperson, I highlight the fact that, in scrutinising the forthcoming Budget, Departments and Statutory Committees alike must prioritise that work to maximise the limited time available.  Early engagement by Committees in the process will assist in providing a degree of certainty in respect of Budget allocations for the coming years, which will enable Departments to plan their spending needs.  Indeed, the Committee wrote to other Statutory Committees just last week to highlight that very matter.
I will now speak in my capacity as a DUP representative.  We are entering an exciting new chapter for the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.  The next Budget, which, at this stage, is still likely to be a multi-year Budget, will incorporate for the first time the implications of leaving the European Union and the additional resources that we will no longer, as the United Kingdom, be giving to the European Union.  It will be a time of considerable opportunity.  Being freed from the obligations and rules around trade constraints and state aid will provide potentially game-changing opportunities to stimulate our economy and form new trade relations across the globe.  The changed context opens up and creates the space for an exciting conversation about what new initiatives can be created and driven forward for Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.
There will, of course, be some apprehension.  We have heard that from some business organisations and around the Chamber.  There will be, as there is at every time of significant global events, market movement, followed by recalibration.  It was ever thus.  However, to fear or avoid change and improvement because of that would be foolish.  To shy away from changing what is wrong and what is not working due to uncertainty and fear creates only stagnation.  Let us be brave in stepping forward; let us take this opportunity and take the essential steps required to lay the foundation for a better, more vibrant and sustainable economic future for Northern Ireland out of the European Union.
In Northern Ireland, we needed a game-changer.  Before this, we had the shackles of the European Union.  We now have an opportunity to maximise and examine best practice and innovation from around the world.  The negotiations in the autumn in relation to the multi-year Budget will be essential for that, particularly if we are to stimulate economic growth; increase the size of our private sector; use our well-skilled workforce, low staff turnover and other attractive attributes here to attract foreign direct investment; and use innovative tools to grow our indigenous businesses and increase exports and business development.  To talk and lament where we are now will not change anything, so let us move on positively by working collaboratively to bring about the economic transformation that we need and want to see.  Let us see the opportunities, not the challenges.
I have stated before that the DUP is committed to a strong and sensible approach to the Budget and fiscal matters.  We want to see collaborative working, evidence-based policy and the transformation and reform of processes to ensure effectiveness.  We advocate fiscal responsibility.  There is nothing to fear in that, but we want a context of taking brave steps and necessary decisions and showing leadership on rebalancing and stimulating the economy of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.

Philip Smith: Since the previous stage of the Bill, the economic and budgetary landscape has fundamentally changed with last week's referendum result.  Fortunately, the Bank of England and the Treasury had contingency plans, but the question is this:  are we as well prepared, and do we have contingency plans?  On Friday, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister said that we do not have a plan B, but I was pleased to hear the First Minister mention in her comments earlier that, at last, we are now taking action.
I hope that the Minister of Finance has a plan, as every Department detailed in the Bill will be affected by our leaving the EU.  Some of the funding may be covered by additional budget from Westminster, and some may not; at this stage, no one knows.  The expectation is that the Estimates in the Bill will not be affected by Brexit and that it will be two years at least before the full ramifications become clear.  Again, no one knows.
What we do know is that our Budget will be affected by two issues, both of which are outside our control.  First, as we have already seen, a significantly weaker pound will reduce the value of EU payments in the short term to the Executive and to funding recipients such as our farmers.  There is, of course, an element of swings and roundabouts, as a weaker currency should help our exporters and our tourism industry and encourage cross-border shopping, but it will also make imports more expensive, including oil, which will increase energy and transport costs.  The net impact is likely to dampen growth in investment in the short term, thereby reducing the revenue generated by Northern Ireland.  Of course, this is in the context of Northern Ireland being the lowest growth region in these islands, so we are starting from a relatively low base.
Secondly, we must also look at debt and the potential for increased costs to fund that debt.  Let us also bear in mind that the Executive are indebted to the tune of over £1,200 per person compared with Scotland — with an oil industry and a top 100 plcs that we sadly lack — where the debt is £530 per person.  On Saturday, as I mentioned in the earlier debate, Moody's downgraded the UK's long-term debt rating from stable to negative.  Its analysis is that:
"the negative effect from lower economic growth will outweigh the fiscal savings from the UK no longer having to contribute to the EU budget."
Of course, any EU contribution is still an unknown outworking of the negotiations yet to come.  If the UK made the same deal as Norway, we would still contribute a net £3·5 billion to EU funds as the price for access to the single market.  This reduced credit rating will result in higher borrowing costs for government, businesses and households in the longer term.  It could have a negative impact on the Budget before us, as increased interest payments mean less money for services and will, of course, mean that the Minister of Finance's desire to increase debt becomes a more expensive option.
The Minister's war cry — we have heard it again already this afternoon — is that we must oppose austerity.  Moody's also pointed out that the UK has one of the largest budget deficits among the advanced economies, thanks, as I pointed out in my previous speech on the Bill, to the Labour Government's mismanagement of public funds.  As this deficit becomes more expensive to finance, the pressure to further reduce the deficit and raise funds to pay for it will lead to increased taxation or further pressure on budgets.
Therefore, despite the potential lead time for our leaving the EU to be well outside the scope of this Budget, it is highly likely that the impact of Brexit on currency, debt growth and government income could mean that the Budget will need to be revisited in the autumn.  The expectation at Westminster is that a Budget may well be required once the initial turbulence settles, and that will require a response from our Executive as, undoubtedly, it will affect our spending plans.
As I said in my contributions during the debates on previous stages of the Bill, the Budget comes at the start of a challenging time for the Executive.  This Budget is relatively benign compared with what is to come for the remainder of the mandate.  The Minister of Finance has had the benefit, as he has already pointed out, of having over £170 million for reallocation as part of the June monitoring round.  I assume that this met the needs of his Executive colleagues; I say "assume", because, like most in the Chamber, I do not know.  We no longer have the option to see the bids from Departments, as they are now a secret.  I know that officials are drawing up new processes.  I hope that the Minister can confirm that future rounds and other Budget processes will be more transparent to aid scrutiny and the ability of the Assembly to hold Ministers to account.
I mentioned a challenging financial environment; this has just become significantly more uncertain with last week's events.  The challenges and uncertainty are exacerbated by the failure of the previous Executive to mend the roof while the sun shone.  That failure to reform and drive change in the public sector means that this Budget fails to meet the requirements of the people of Northern Ireland.  The Executive's prevarication and inaction have got us to this point, and attempts to divert blame will not work.
While I appreciate that this Budget Bill is not the vehicle to do it, we need a coordinated response from the Executive that will produce a plan to protect our local economy and public services.  For example, the Minister stated last week that he is committed to the rate and timetable for the reduction of corporation tax.  This, of course, is the Executive's main policy for attracting foreign direct investment to Northern Ireland as part of a strategy to rebalance our economy away from its over-reliance on the public sector.  The Minister stated that he is seeking a meeting with the Treasury to discuss secondary benefits and the final cost to our Budget.  Of course, that is now all up in the air.  The Azores ruling would no longer apply if we were fully outside the EU; but, again, no one knows how much in or how much out we will be at the end of this.  Will we get a free hit to reduce our corporation tax rate without having to reduce our block grant or will the Treasury refuse this because of the implications for other devolved countries and regions?  Will the policies still make Northern Ireland attractive to investors if we are outside the single market or will we still be able to negotiate access during the article 50 process?  The Minister, on behalf of the Executive, needs to have an emergency meeting with the Treasury to try to obtain clarity on these key issues.
The same level of uncertainty exists in other areas too, such as agricultural support, EU part-funded infrastructure projects, access to higher education, border controls with the Republic and with GB, Peace funding, and other funding for third-sector projects:  all this tallies to a significant portion of the funding within the Budget Bill.  I urge the Minister and his Executive colleagues to produce an emergency plan to ensure that Northern Ireland's voice is heard at Westminster and throughout Europe and that they are clear in their demands to protect our funding streams.
This is a steady-as-she-goes Budget.  It was never good enough to meet Northern Ireland's requirements before the referendum; it certainly does not cut it now.  We will oppose the Bill.  We urge the Minister and the Executive to show some urgency and start to plan for this new economic and political environment.

John O'Dowd: A number of Ulster Unionist Party members said that the Executive should have planned when the sun was shining.  Maybe I missed it.  I was a member of the Executive from 2011 to 2016 and I can assure you that there was no sun shining on the Budget during the period when I was Minister of Education.  In fact, I can remember as far back as Gordon Brown being Prime Minister.  He introduced a number of emergency Budgets when the economic crash hit, and the then Executive's Budget was slashed at that time.  The sun has been hiding behind a financial cloud for at least seven to eight years.  If we are going to talk about what the Executive need to do or should have done, let us talk about it in the reality of the situation we were in and are now in.
The theme that runs through all this — I mentioned it this morning during an earlier debate — is that it works on the theory of the trickle-down economy, which is supposed to ensure that wealth trickles down to all citizens.  The difficulty with the trickle-down economy and economics is this:  when things go wrong, the trickle turns into a tide of austerity against those at the very bottom of the stream.  Since the economic crash in 2007-08, we have been dealing with the consequences of that tidal wave coming down the stream, which has meant that public services have been cut, investment has been cut and the Executive have been managing against a very difficult economic climate to protect public services, create investment and ensure that we try to stabilise our economy with the limited economic levers that they have.  Do you know what?  They have been quite successful at it.
Some 40,000 jobs were created during the last term.  That is a success.  Our education results since the end of direct rule have been going up year on year, and our universities are seeing graduates coming out that the world's investors want to get hold of.  So, it is not all doom and gloom, but there are major difficulties for our economy and society.
The Budget Bill, which has been brought forward today, sets out spending plans for the rest of the year, but do we know what will happen in a month's time or six months' time?  No, we do not.  Those who favour Brexit refer to the £350 million that will come back every week.  We know that it will not be spent on the health service or on a range of services.  They have told us that, but they have not told us what it will be spent on.  There is a fault line in that argument as well because that £350 million did not include the rebate, so it is around £180 million a week.  I am sure that someone has the exact figure in front of them.  That will depend on the attitude of the Government and Chancellor at that time, and it will depend on their attitude to a number of things.  Do they support public services?  If they support public services, that money will be invested in public services, and our Executive will get the Barnett consequentials of that, especially if it is invested in health and education because it is a direct read-over, but if the person or persons in charge do not support public services, why would they invest any of those savings in public services?
The figure also relies on the economic wobble, catastrophe, or whatever is going to happen after the EU exit.  It will have a trickle-down effect on investment and jobs, and, if it has a trickle-down effect on all that, there is not the same amount of revenue being collected as there once was.  So, if we lose investment, such as has been suggested, from the international banking system and other investors etc, we will not have the same amount of revenue being collected.  Therefore, the Chancellor will sit back and say, "I am not receiving the same intake that I was receiving a year ago", and, if he is wedded to austerity, what will that Chancellor do?  He will use the money that was allegedly saved from exiting Europe to pay off this famous thing called the deficit.  We will pay off our deficit for now or never, we will continue to restrict spending on public services, and the sunny day that the Ulster Unionist Party refers to will never come.
So, there are too many things outside our control to look into the future with confidence, but, as I said in the earlier debate, I have confidence that the First Minister and deputy First Minister will work to get the best deal possible for our people, and, to do that, they will have to work together.  I have confidence that they can do that, and I have confidence that the Finance Minister and the other Ministers will work together to ensure that, whatever shape our Budget is in, we will continue to invest and to struggle with the challenges that we have and will continue to invest in our public services moving forward.
I am not picking on Mr Smith, but he presents an argument that is worth responding to, which is the idea that there has not been enough reform over the last five to 10 years.  In reality, in the first term of the Assembly following the restoration of the institutions, we, as a collective political body, were learning, and we had a steep learning curve to go through.  When you are learning the mechanisms of power and politics, you will not always immediately go into a reform programme — I do not like that term — a programme of change, a programme of betterment to ensure that public services are fit for purpose, but, in the last mandate, a significant amount of work was carried out in that area.  We have seen the reform of our local government.  We have seen our education bodies reduced to one.  We have seen ongoing work in relation to the voluntary exit scheme.  I do not intend to spend the next five years referring back to my time as Minister of Education, but we also saw major reform in education around the number of schools that we have.  People say to me that we are afraid to make difficult decisions.  Those decisions were made because they had to be made, and that will have benefits as we move into the future.
That brings me on to borrowing.  The figure of around £2·1 billion is thrown out as the Executive's debt, but we found out last week in the Finance Committee meeting that that figure is not all the Executive's debt.  It is, in fact, a legacy debt from local government.  I am looking round and there are many former councillors in the Chamber.  That debt is your debt from when you were sitting on local councils and borrowing, quite rightly, to deliver public services.  That debt remains and is now on the Executive's books.  A significant proportion of that Executive debt relates to local government borrowing.  The Finance Minister has not suggested that he will borrow in a reckless or negligent way, but it is still an opportunity that needs to be explored.  I raise the issue of where the debt is broken down to because we need to have the full facts and figures in front of us so that we can then make informed decisions about how we invest and what mechanisms we use to invest in the future.
I want to end on the point that, unsurprisingly, I will support the Finance Minister's Bill.  I am of the view that, despite the challenges over the last five to 10 years, the Executive have been a bulwark against austerity and will continue to be so.  Mr Allister told us earlier that, all of a sudden, now that the EU referendum is through, we have more powers.  I have not seen the list yet, but, if Mr Allister is prepared to take on more powers to benefit this society, he will not find us blushing or being shy about introducing those powers, because we need more economic levers to create the vision that we all share on ensuring that investment in our public services is secured.

Claire Hanna: I thank the Minister.  I will keep my comments brief because we discussed the Bill at length earlier in the process.  Quite clearly, you have an incredibly large job ahead of you in picking up some of the pieces from last week.  I welcome the Minister's very rational comments in the debate and, indeed, in the media earlier and urge him to continue to ensure that the Northern Ireland Executive represent Northern Ireland's interests in the absence of any plan coming from London or anywhere else to make sure that our financial interests are not just washed away in the chaos that surrounds the Brexit decision.
We remain of the view that this Budget treads water by having policies and spending priorities that we do not feel are delivering very effectively for Northern Ireland.  They were not ambitious.  Obviously, we do not have the detail yet, but we do not see anything specific in the Programme for Government that leads us to believe that that will change very radically in transforming the economy or adding significant value to what we already get from devolution and from copying things over from London.  In particular, we feel that investment in skills is lacking, and that will make a challenging foreign direct investment proposal even more challenging.  Given that we will no longer be a gateway to Europe, being skilled and having infrastructure is ever more important.  We are concerned about increased funding going to the likes of SIF and the Executive Office, which we do not feel are sufficiently transparent or have a particularly good record of delivery.
We also raised concerns previously about transparency and the direction of the joint government manifesto commitment for an extra £1 billion on health and the extent to which that money would be used sustainably.  As I say, we urge that more of a priority be placed on infrastructure, childcare, early years and apprenticeships, and we have outlined extensive proposals elsewhere during the debates.  I know that the Minister is keen enough on the idea, but we would like a move to a slightly more zero-based budgeting approach so that every time that any party — government or opposition — makes a funding proposal, it cannot be just pitched as robbing Peter to pay Paul, and, essentially, we have to go from the start and redesign our budgets and spending priorities that fit our specific needs rather than just, as I say, the baseline budget given to us by the Treasury.
We heard a pretty optimistic view of the post-Brexit world from the Committee Chair, who, I appreciate, is not here.  I do not share her enthusiasm about the opportunities.  If the opportunities were so fruitful, they should have been fleshed out.  Instead, what we now know to be campaign priorities — the NHS and immigration — were the subject of a world-record breaking reverse ferret:  people were in the media literally hours after claiming victory to recant those horrible promises.
I have a couple of specific questions. Will the Minister outline what impact the Azores ruling will have in his negotiations, if he can find somebody to negotiate with, on corporation tax with the Treasury?  Of course, in theory, the Azores ruling will no longer be an issue, and my understanding is that they do not have to take the consistent amount off our block grant.
Will the Minister consider implementing a sunset clause on corporation tax?  We consider that that would be useful.  If we do not see the arrival of 21st-century serious, decent jobs because of the drop in corporation tax — I have long since been of the view that entrepreneurs are not hanging around waiting for a tax cut but looking for the other circumstances to be right — will he consider writing in a sunset clause?  That would mean that, if we did not get those jobs, we would no longer have to subscribe to what could crudely be called "corporate welfare".   We could put the rate back up and get back into the public purse what was not necessarily coming in through high-quality jobs.  We await a wider political and constitutional strategy from the Executive about what to do post-Brexit, but I am keen to hear the Minister's plan.
Earlier, I expressed the view that some on the hard end of the left wing were very casual about Brexit.  They threw up the argument about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) as a campaigning tool during the election but refused to answer questions on the absolute quirk in their screwy logic, which was that it would not be better for that to be negotiated by 28 countries than handing it all to Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.  I suspect that, primarily, they see Brexit and the resulting austerity as an opportunity to sell more pamphlets and put up more placards and posters.  Who needs to care about protecting the economy and public services when you can just cry about them being cut again?
When we were talking about it this morning, I thought about the scale of the ramifications for markets, law, workers' rights and public services.  I am not that much of a conspiracy therapist, but it put me in mind of Naomi Klein's shock doctrine.  Basically, that is the theory of disaster capitalism and neo-liberals using national crises, and the distraction and emotional shock that they cause — to utterly redesign systems and force through the most controversial of reforms in what is, essentially, a form of shock therapy carried out on the entire economy.  Will the Minister outline what strategies he can bring forward so that he is vigilant against and can prevent a raid by the incoming UK Government?  I suspect that they will not spend more than a couple of seconds thinking about the nuances, complexities and differing needs of a region that will be massively disproportionately affected by Brexit.
Throughout the campaign, we said that one third of our exports were agrifoods; across the water, the figure is just 3%.  The current Government do not really understand our economy, and I am sure that the new one will not either, and they will have many other things to deal with.  Will the Minister outline what his strategy will be to ensure that there is not a raid on our block grant or the Barnett formula?

Stephen Farry: I will start by talking about the Budget (No. 2) Bill in the context in which the resolution to approve was originally tabled, accepting, by implication, that the world has changed significantly since.  My party had considerable scepticism about the Bill in its original format and, indeed, context and to what extent it provided for a sustainable and strategic Budget
When Mr Smith made the point about the Executive not making hay while the sun was shining, he was challenged by Mr O'Dowd, who said that the sun was never shining.  I concur with Mr O'Dowd, particularly in the context in which we now find ourselves.  I do not recognise a situation in which the Executive were making strategic plans for the future.  Rather, we were in a series of crisis modes to try to arrest decline — some of them imposed by the UK Government, and some of them self-inflicted wounds, but, still, there was very little planning for the future.  It was basically about making do, day by day or month by month, at times.
Opportunities to reform our public services and put ourselves in a stronger position to support our economy have suffered.  That is not to say that good work was not conducted across a range of Departments and by the Executive as a whole on a range of issues, including our performance in job support, job creation, investment in skills to an extent — we could have done more, obviously, with more resources — and some changes in health and education.  At the same time, there were a lot of big, missed opportunities, including a reorientation of our public services, particularly in health and education on a more long-term basis, and taking into account the opportunities to move ahead with integration in what is still, sadly, a divided society.
Moving forward, we find ourselves with a Budget that still has those inbuilt structural flaws.  We have not yet tackled the cost of a divided society.  We are still not tackling effectively issues around waste and inefficiency in a range of areas.  Some of those may well be related to division; some of them are not.  The reform of our health service is a key example of the latter category.  I concur with comments that have been made; it is not simply about allocating up front a set amount of money to go into the pot to keep the health service going or to try to catch up with healthcare inflation irrespective of the implications for all other Departments in the process. This has to be about deciding what reform is required, and, if we need more money to support that process of reform, by all means make that happen, almost on an invest-to-save basis.
I also think that we were not planning ahead sufficiently for changes in the economy.  We have not been investing sufficiently in skills.  We have the policies and practices in place that would allow us to make the best use of resources, but we have not scaled up sufficiently, particularly in what was the context — it may still be the context — of a lower rate of corporation tax.  Those investments, I believe, are absolute inescapable realities.  They are not some sort of optional extra that we would do if we had the resources.
While I welcome the money that was confirmed by the Finance Minister for skills in the June monitoring round a few weeks ago, it is worth stressing again that that money is already factored in, rightly or wrongly, to budgets for the current year, based upon the promissory notes from the previous Finance Minister.  We still have major structural deficits, particularly in higher education.  The figure of £55 million has been cited by the vice chancellors.  Let me stress that that is to reflect the steady state situation in terms of ensuring that we have parity of funding with other parts of these islands.  It does not reflect the quite right hopes that many have for the expansion of our higher education sector, particularly in the north-west.
I think that there is the potential for fundamental changes to occur in our financial landscape.  Like others, I wish the Finance Minister well on what will be a very difficult road ahead.  We would be deluding ourselves if we simply pretended that it is business as usual.  It is not.  There are fundamental financial challenges ahead, and we are going to have to work as Northern Ireland to mitigate those as best we can and to see if we can put in place special arrangements and circumstances that will allow us to, potentially, continue to benefit from the European Union in a way that is consistent with the views of the electorate in Northern Ireland, if not necessarily the electorate of the UK as a whole.
The continuation of corporation tax may be one of those issues, but I think it is inevitable that we will have to pause and reflect on the way forward with regard to corporation tax.  This time last week, we were all set to go with a rate, potentially by 2018, subject to some minor negotiations with Treasury.  However, that could not and should not happen without further investment in skills.
Today, I think we need to take a step back and have a more fundamental reassessment of the model.  Corporation tax was envisaged in the context of our continuing to be part of the European Union and to participate in the single market.  As anyone who has worked in investment will know, the single biggest issue for businesses looking to Northern Ireland is access to markets, and that means access to the European Union.  That is closely followed by political stability.  We do not have either of those at this stage.  The third issue is skills, and we have a good foundation but have not scaled up.  There is a question mark over that as well.  In the context of our not having guaranteed access to the single market, we may need to reassess the exact approach we take.  In the context of a declining Budget in particular, is it something we can afford if it is not going to be effective?
The contrary argument to all that is that, if we do not have access to the single market, we are taking two steps or three steps back in our competitive position in the world, so perhaps a lower rate of corporation tax is now more essential than ever to compensate for what is the foolish decision that has been taken over the past number of days about our participation in the European Union.  That can happen only through a fresh look at the model on all this, and it is important that we keep an open mind on that.  At the same time, we cannot plough on regardless as though nothing has happened.  I am sure the Minister will be acutely aware, as Claire Hanna mentioned, that, potentially, the terms of the Azores ruling do not apply, in the sense that the UK Government have to ensure that the money is recouped from us.  They still have the discretion to insist that the money is recouped or not, and that will be a live issue.
On the wider financial context that arises from the decision, we need to be mindful that there was a lot of debate during the campaign about who got what money and the money that comes in and the money that comes out.  Even if you work on the assumption that Northern Ireland maybe gets just slightly more from the European Union than local taxpayers pay in and that, therefore, it is not really something worth quibbling about, you also have to bear in mind that that is in the context of much a greater economic argument about the economic benefits that come.  It is about not just the flow of money in cash terms but access to markets, the economic boost that comes and the finance that is generated from that.
In the context of our being out of the European Union, there is no guarantee that we will achieve the same amount of money coming from London that we currently have coming from Brussels.  It is OK for people to say, "It is great that the UK Government will reclaim the net effect of the money that is paid in and will be very generous in their largesse to the regions", but there is no guarantee whatsoever that that will be the case.
We have to bear in mind that the UK Government do not follow the same approach to us under devolution in terms of what our priorities are.  For example, we place a much heavier emphasis on support for agriculture and agrifood.  Those are two important elements of our economy.  They are far more important on a proportionate basis in Northern Ireland than they are in the rest of the UK, so there is no guarantee that a future UK Government are going to place the same focus on that type of support.  Also, I do not imagine that the UK Government are going to worry to the same extent about support for something like the European social fund when they, particularly the current Conservative Government, do not see the value of that focus in training and supporting marginalised communities.

Alex Attwood: Will the Member give way?

Stephen Farry: Yes.

Alex Attwood: To develop your point, is it also not the case that, when it came to the successor programme to Peace, the British Government made no argument whatsoever to the Brussels authorities for the continuation of Peace and that it was left to the Irish Government and our own Government to make that argument?  Is that not further evidence of what London will do on a pound-for-pound basis to support the North post-EU withdrawal?  Look at what happened with the Peace project.  They did not back it at all.

Stephen Farry: I very much concur with the Member, and I am sure he will also reflect on this from his period in office.  When Northern Ireland has been working in Brussels, we have often had to rely upon our own resources, our own administration and support from our own Northern Ireland bureau in Brussels to get access to the European Commission.  Frankly, at times we have had stronger allies in the Irish Government when we have needed extra leverage to get points over the line.  The UK representation in Brussels has been next to useless in supporting the interests of Northern Ireland.  They pay lip service to it but, frankly, it is a complication they do not often want.  They have their own aspirations in that regard.
Another example is the potential use of the European anti-globalisation fund, which Members have expressed interest in using whenever jobs have been relocated out of Northern Ireland.  That is a fund available within the European Union — another benefit — but our UK Government have set their face against the use of that fund in its entirety, in contrast with our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland.   So there are a whole host of things there that we risk losing in terms of cash.
The most fundamental point that we have to bear in mind is the context of a shrinking UK economy if, as now seems inevitable, we are going to see a UK recession.  Whether it is a technical recession or a more sustained recession, it is a recession nonetheless, and something that will affect people.  We will see the UK economy shrinking.  There will be less tax revenue coming in.  It is in that context that the UK Budget as currently set begins to unravel.  That is the context in which we will potentially see our own Budgets being unpicked here in Northern Ireland.  There is a reasonable chance that we will be spared in the current financial year, but in the next comprehensive spending review the chances are we are going to see even a smaller Budget than has been allocated to us in terms of future planning.  That is going to cause us difficulties in terms of already difficult decisions to be taken.
If I go back to the comments I made at the start about structural difficulties within our own Budget that have not been properly addressed to date, we are going to get an ever tighter situation, which puts an ever greater premium on trying to address those types of issues.  In closing, Mr Deputy Speaker —

Alex Attwood: Will the Member give way?

Stephen Farry: Yes.

Alex Attwood: I do not agree with the Member that there is not going to be a supplementary Budget this year.  The Chancellor flagged up this morning that, on the far side of the new Cabinet in the autumn, there may well be.  In that event, is it not now the case that the Minister of Finance will be obliged under the law established for Fresh Start to come to this Chamber and make a statement about the changed financial position, that being a requirement of the British Government for the Fresh Start?

Stephen Farry: That may well be the case, but I want to stress that I agree that there may well be a statement this year, but I suspect that the 2016-17 Budget may be spared, although any statements made in the autumn will have application from the 2017-18 financial year onwards.  It is in that context where things could begin to unravel to an extent.  No matter what way you look at it in terms of precisely when things are going to happen, we are in perilous times.  Even if we do not see an economic collapse overnight, that does not mean we are out of the difficult, choppy waters.  These things are going to happen over a period of time.  Companies will take time to make decisions over what is going to happen.  Investment decisions will slowly unravel.  We will never actually see the investment decisions that could have been taken that never happened.  We will never see the effect of those that we have missed out on.
It does trouble me, and we have heard this from the Chair of the Finance Committee already, about this wonderful nirvana that we are now entering into, free from the shackles of the European Union.  I wonder why we still have countries queueing up to join the European Union, if it is such a straitjacket on your ability to invest resources.  Of course, we can do more without state aid rules, but that presupposes that we have a Government that want to actually invest in supporting our industry.  You just have to go back to the 1980s, when we were part of the European Union and state aid rules were a bit more lax, and we did not have a Government that wanted to support industry in different ways.  So there is no guarantee that, free from the European Union, that is going to happen.
We had Mr Bell talking about the shrinkage of the EU's share of the global economy.  Albeit that growth has been slower in the EU than in many other parts of the world, that reflects the fact that we have modern economies in the European Union, where growth has occurred over many decades before.  The reason we are seeing an imbalance in the global economy is the very welcome rise in development in many other parts of the world, particularly the Far East, and that is good news.
That, in turn, is where a lot of investment will come from over the coming years.  They will look to the European Union to make those investments, not a United Kingdom on the fringes of the European Union.
We also heard the nonsense that there would be lower youth unemployment outside the European Union.  The reason that we have different approaches to youth unemployment across the European Union is that different policies on training are applied at the national level.  Countries that invest in highly vocational systems of training, including high-level apprenticeships, have lower youth unemployment figures because there is a much stronger match between supply and demand in the economy and because employability skills are taught at an early age.  Hence the Germanic countries and Scandinavia have lower rates of unemployment.  European countries with national policies that do not follow those models have high youth unemployment.  The European Commission is keen to promote vocational training on the Germanic model and show the countries in Europe that do not have good figures that there is a different way.  It is important to put that on record.
We have concerns with this Budget as we find it. It is not sufficiently sustainable or strategic. In its current format we have opposed it through the Executive and the Assembly, but we recognise that it will be passed.  The world is changing.  Looking ahead to the wider context, as is the custom at Final Stage, we are in an extremely difficult situation, and it is important that we are fully alert to the dangers and work closely with the Finance Minister.  He has our best wishes for a difficult and challenging job.

Jonathan Bell: Many Members will be confused about whether parts of this debate belong to the previous debate, so we need to be clear about a number of points so that this does not carry over to debate after debate. The referendum has been held, and the decision of the United Kingdom has been made.  The Prime Minister in the House of Commons today was explicit that there would not be a second referendum.  My distinguished colleague Gavin Robinson asked the Prime Minister to dismiss the constitutional nonsense that devolved bodies could somehow frustrate the decision of the United Kingdom to go for Brexit, and he did so.  And just to clarify for those who came out with the nonsense of a border poll, the Prime Minister has said that there will not be one.
Now that the decision of the United Kingdom has been made, it is incumbent on all of us to follow the instructions of the people of the United Kingdom and to do our best with the Budget before us.  All of us could do more if we had more money.  However, we are not tasked to have a debate about fantasies or what might be; we are tasked to deal with the allocation that we have and to show to the people of Northern Ireland effective stewardship of the Budget by delivering something better than they would have got without a devolved Government.

Stephen Farry: I thank the Member for giving way.  I welcome his repudiation of fantasy budgets.  On that basis, can he tell us when we are getting our first share of the £300 million per week that will be returned to us to invest in our hospitals?

Jonathan Bell: Let me repeat this in case the Member just did not get it: the referendum has been held. Secondly, the people have spoken. Thirdly, we are not going to have a second one.  Can we move on to the Budget?
I voted to leave on the basis that I wanted to spend the money that we have in Northern Ireland in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.  When we have considerable difficulties across the board, we should not have been giving the levels of money that we gave to the European Union, when it would be better spent on the most vulnerable people in Northern Ireland, who are suffering.  That is not a laughing matter.
Let us get the point: there is not going to be a border poll or a second referendum.  The team has been set up by the Prime Minister to take forward the terms of the Brexit, and it is now incumbent on all of us to do what we can to ensure that we deliver the maximum with the resources that we have.
I turn to the economy.  Claire Hanna is not here.  I am not sure what she was talking about when she said that we were not going for high-value jobs, nor am I sure where she has been for the last number of years.  Anybody who has been in the House or is moderately aware of the jobs that have come into Northern Ireland will know the significance of some of those jobs. I offer two examples.  Citigroup came here with 369 jobs and now sits with over 2,000 jobs in Northern Ireland.  Ten years ago, we did not have a financial technology industry of the significance that we do today, when the 'Financial Times' refers to us as the fintech capital of the world.  We are the most entrepreneurial region of the UK, as defined in the past by the 'Financial Times'.  This is the part of the United Kingdom where you can most quickly grow your business to £1 million.  In our universities and further education colleges, we have the ability to give our young people the skills in the future areas — not least cybersecurity — that can attract high-value jobs to Northern Ireland.

Stephen Farry: Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Bell: I want to make some progress.
We have to make sure that we look forward and unite across the House to see how we can get those high skills and high-value jobs into Northern Ireland.
I know that the Minister has been active in markets outside the European Union, not least the United States.  Earlier, Mr Farry referred to the huge growth in the economies to the east and how we should try to link into them.  I come to the Budget debate believing that the British economy is strong and that we are open for business.  In the past, we have made a strong contribution in terms of talent.  With our education system, we can continue to produce young people who, many businesses and others have told me, are, as a rule of thumb, about 10% ahead of the UK average.  Groups like Allstate publicly say that they came to Northern Ireland for our business costs.  We all know that our business costs are about 50% or less of those in London, 85%, generally, of those in the rest of the United Kingdom and about 95% of business costs in the Republic of Ireland.  We can win on cost, education and talent.  I hope that in the future, as the First Minister and Finance Minister outlined, we can make sure that we have a tax rate that will attract investment into Northern Ireland.
You remember that we were told that we could not attract more foreign direct investment than London and that London was a high-water mark, a global city.  We were told that we should not try.  Yet, sometime around August 2014, we overtook London and attracted more foreign direct investment per head of our population to this part of the United Kingdom than anywhere else.

Stephen Farry: Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Bell: No.  There is no reason at all why we cannot continue an upward trajectory.
One thing that has been missed is that we did some sterling work to ensure that we had mitigation measures in place for the most vulnerable in our society, and I pay tribute to Professor Evason on the work that her team and the working group did.
I am not sure that she and the team in their work have got the credit that they deserve for giving us the evidence base to bring forward policies that will mitigate the worst effects of what is a difficult time for many vulnerable people out there.  We will do work in the House later on other items that are going to be brought forward in communities.  If the referendum has taught us anything, it is that there is a significant disconnect among people who are struggling to get by.  This House must be on their side.  We must use the mitigation methods that we have at our disposal to help the most vulnerable people in society and show the people in our society —

Nichola Mallon: Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Bell: I am not prepared to play political games with vulnerable people.  I am speaking about Professor Evason's report.  It is not a joke.  It is not a political game.  It is about helping the most vulnerable people in our society.  I hope that, as we go forward with this Budget, we can continue, with some of the best knowledge base that Professor Evason and her team have given us, to look to help and support the most vulnerable people in our society.
The Minister mentioned it.  We will disagree on whether or not there is hope for young people out there.  The UK figure of unemployment among under-25s of 13·4% is not acceptable.  It is 13·4% too much, but, as I said in the earlier debate, look at the unemployment in Greece of 48·9%, in Spain of 45·3% and in Croatia of 40·3%.  While I do not boast about the state of our youth unemployment, I do welcome the fact that the last set of figures that I saw showed another fall in the overall unemployed.  We had more people in employment.  Long-term unemployment, economic inactivity — albeit by a small margin — and youth unemployment are falling.  It is incumbent on us in this Budget to make sure that that trajectory continues.

Danny Kennedy: I call Mr Declan Kearney.  As this is Mr Kearney's first opportunity to speak as a private Member, I remind the House that it is the convention that a maiden speech is made without interruption.

Declan Kearney: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhaire, as ucht na deise labhartha.  Thank you for the opportunity to speak.  Go raibh maith agat, a chara, agus guím gach rath ortsa san Aireacht úr atá os do chomhair amach anseo.  I am honoured to replace my friend and comrade Mitchel McLaughlin in the Assembly and to represent South Antrim.  I pay tribute to his role as an architect of the peace process and latterly as Speaker of the House.  Since childhood, I have been inspired by a proud Antrim republican tradition founded on the egalitarian and anti-sectarian ideals of Jamie Hope and Roger Casement and the commitment of personal friends now deceased such as Anne McCoy, John Davey, Malachy Carey and Peter Gallagher.
Dearbhaím go bhfuil mé tiomanta mo dhícheall a dhéanamh ar son leas na ndaoine go léir ar bhonn trasphobail.  The purpose of the economy must be to serve the needs of society.  Budget allocations should be aligned with society's priorities.  This small regional economy contends with deep structural weaknesses and depends on a public expenditure settlement from Westminster that has reduced in net terms year on year since 2010 due to the austerity policies of this British Tory Government and the previous Administration of Tories and Lib Dems.
British Government policy has been a direct cause of political instability here in recent years.  The North remains a low-wage economy with unyielding and unchanging patterns of social and economic disadvantage and the worst living standards of any region in Ireland or Britain.  Tory austerity has run down our public services and forced our people into food banks.  It has undermined economic growth and prevented balanced regional investment, job creation, all-Ireland economic competitiveness and the eradication of inequality.  Add to all of that the denial of fiscal independence to the Executive.
Austerity is the cost of the Union and the context of the Budget debate, within which the new Programme for Government (PFG) must be implemented.  The PFG offers a new policy paradigm, which puts the well-being of community at the heart of governmental decision-making.  The proposed consultation process should be embraced as a strategic opportunity by local businesses, our trade unionists, our urban and rural-based community sectors and wider civic society to democratise further the process of government in this state.  I urge the Executive to listen carefully, very carefully.
Increased engagement and partnership with wider civic society should now define how our regional government works.  Ní mór don Choiste Feidhmiúcháin agus don Tionól malairt slí straitéisteach a mhúnlú amach anseo.  A step change is required.  Renewed commitment to power-sharing and partnership has to be central to the new mandate, and that will be as much a test for the parties that chose to go into opposition as it will be for the parties that are entrusted with governmental responsibility.  The approach to the forthcoming PFG should be radical, innovative and transformational.  It should also refuse to be fettered by institutional orthodoxy and absolutely and resolutely oppose austerity.  These institutions need to continue to act as a bulwark against British Tory austerity.
I believe that justice and policing remain central to the continued democratic transformation of this state, and, as my party's justice spokesperson, I will advocate for increased investment in front-line policing, community restorative justice programmes and effective service delivery to make our community a safer place for everyone.  Justice agencies and processes must be appropriately resourced to ensure that they administer not only appropriate punishments but deterrence and rehabilitation.  The justice system must become more responsive to young people, vulnerable women, disadvantaged families and our elderly citizens, and everyone must have adequate access to justice.  That includes the families denied truth and justice because of the British Government's refusal to finance legacy investigations and inquests.
There must also be greater accountability on the use of public funding.  In the Public Accounts Committee, I have already noted an absence of transparency and accountability and a culture of disregard concerning the use of public funds in this state.  That is never acceptable, especially when our Executive Budget is being raided by Tories and far too many families are living on the breadline.  There must be zero tolerance of the misuse and abuse of public funds.
In recent days, the EU referendum has dramatically changed the political and economic landscape here.  The majority of voters from across the political spectrum in this state voted to say that the North should remain in Europe.  This referendum was always about a civil war between British Conservative right-wing factions, and it is unacceptable that the democratic will of this region should be overruled by English voters.  Our economic and financial future is now one of unprecedented uncertainty.  Two hundred thousand jobs in Ireland directly and indirectly depend on €1·2 billion worth of trade, North and South, on this island every week.  Brexit directly threatens all of that and more.
I have previously challenged Theresa Villiers to say whether Brexit would benefit our people and whether her Government would replace the lost investment, trade and funding that would go with a Brexit.  She refused to answer then and has refused since.  However, the majority of our people know the answers to those questions, and they registered that answer last Thursday.  Their outrage is justified, so Theresa Villiers should follow David Cameron and resign.  She has absolutely no authority to represent the economic or social interests of the people of the North of Ireland or on matters regarding Europe.  Brexit is the price of Ireland's continued partition.
I predict that we will face an even more right-wing Tory Government and greater austerity in this state.
The Assembly and Executive should respect and underpin the democratic decision of the North and not, as other Members advocated, simply roll over and acquiesce.  We are better than that.  Our urgent focus must be on retaining our special relationship with the EU and protecting the trade, investment and funding that are essential to support our regional and island economies.  The Executive's Budget, the Programme for Government and the democratic will of our people must not be held hostage to the anti-democratic agenda of British right-wing Tories.
The British state, as we know it, is in crisis.  The political imperative for the Assembly must be to stand up for local democracy and face down the austerity coming from Britain.

Colin McGrath: I want to talk about the many constituency-based issues and priorities that I would like be in the Budget.  I was raised on the old maxim of, "If you don't ask, you don't get", so I would like to take this opportunity to ask.  The things I am asking for are relevant to all of Northern Ireland and are the very basic things that we should have.  They are the things that protect life, educate our children, help our elderly to feel safe and make our communities better places.  In short, they are the things that we should be asking for.
As you all know, I hail from South Down, a rural community that feels exposed and vulnerable, especially when it comes to health matters.  I have been an active participant for nearly a decade in the Save the Downe campaign.  In that time, we have had life-saving and critical services downgraded or removed from our facility.  At times, the trust told us that it was down to personnel issues and that the sunnier climes of Bondi Beach were much more attractive than Newcastle, something that is, I might add, without foundation.  On other occasions, we were told that the cuts were financially led.  That was the case in the stripping of our coronary care facility, which provided much-needed local heart services, often to the most ill in our community and the elderly.  That facility was shut by the trust to make in-year savings of just £300,000.  I noted that, in the June monitoring round, nearly £200 million was going to health.  I was going to say that I hoped that some of that would trickle its way down so that the Downe Hospital might be able to reopen the facility.  However, I got an Assembly answer this afternoon that said, "No, it will not."  Once again, we will have to do without.
One of the vulnerabilities most keenly sensed comes from the lack of appropriate ambulance cover, especially in rural areas.  My community has had waiting times in excess of an hour for emergency ambulances when somebody has rung 999, which is deplorable.  We are failing our elderly population when they must lie, as a constituent of mine had to, for an hour and a half with a broken hip, waiting for an ambulance to come.  We are letting our community down when a constituent of mine, who is in the midst of a severe mental health episode and cannot be injected by a paramedic, has to wait two hours for a doctor to come out to help her.  We are letting people down.  In a case that I had, for example, a young lad who had broken his leg had to wait two and a half hours for an ambulance to come and provide basic care.
The service is staffed by some of the most competent life-saving individuals in our health system, but they are pushed to their limits.  They miss meal breaks and stay late after work.  That is unfair.

Nichola Mallon: I thank the Member for giving way.  He shared a story about a constituent suffering a severe mental health episode.  Does he agree that we need greater investment in our mental health services, particularly early intervention support and within the community?  Would he, like me, welcome hearing the Minister's views on any plans the Executive might have to put investment in physical and mental health on a more equal footing?

Colin McGrath: I thank my colleague for her intervention.  I know that some reports published in England have stated that it is a necessity to try to provide mental health coverage as close as possible to patients to enable them not to have to travel long distances, as that can have a detrimental impact.  There therefore needs to be financial intervention to help the mental health services in Northern Ireland.
We have to resource our Ambulance Service adequately, and I would like to see this Budget specifically mention that.  I ask the Minister to consider additional funds for the Ambulance Service.  I do not mean just a few quid to sticky-tape over the problem.  It needs wholesale financing to allow it to respond to our rural population in particular.
I want to see an education budget that goes much further than the one that we have at present.  A few extra quid periodically may have helped grease the odd ministerial visit —

Jennifer Palmer: Thank you very much for giving way.  You highlighted inefficiencies in the Ambulance Service.  Do you agree that it is despicable that, this year, 33 calls have been diverted to Scotland, which, in turn, slowed the delivery of an ambulance to an urgent case?

Colin McGrath: I welcome the intervention, which further highlights the pressure that our staff are under.  If staff in a call centre are not able to deal with the pressure, that too needs some resolution.  I know that staff there are dealing with immense pressure, as are staff in the ambulances.
I was saying that the few extra quid for education that may have greased the odd ministerial visit in the previous mandate is not going to help, because our schools are at breaking point.  This week, probably even today, they have been taking decisions on whether to let staff go.  They have been contemplating letting more-experienced staff go so that they can employ cheaper, newly qualified staff, and they are shedding classroom assistants, who are critical to the delivery of tailored education for some.  Schools are stripping away the curriculum support that our children get, in the form of field trips and study visits, and diluting classroom resources that complement learning.  We are taking the additional out of education and leaving stressed teachers with little support in the classroom and increasing class sizes, yet we throw in the Education and Training Inspectorate inspectors and expect them to see a miracle.
We must adequately resource our schools and allow our education system to deliver children's fullest potential.  The current debacle of passing on the superannuation and pay increases to school budgets is so shortsighted that whoever decided that the Department should not step in and help should be sent to detention.  School budgets are definitely like balloons at the minute.  They are filled to capacity, and this decision is like a pin, and it is going to cause them to burst.  It will impact on education and on our children.  It is a bad decision and is being implemented without any help.  As I said, it impacts on our children and their future, and for the Budget and this Executive not to address that is unforgivable.
I also hope that the shortsighted and ill-thought-out campaign by the three Brexiteers of England, Wales and the DUP does not mean that we will not see a direct and detrimental impact on tourism in Northern Ireland.  It is the jewel in the crown.  In South Down, we are well aware of that.  We have Saint Patrick's Country around Downpatrick and the fantastic Saint Patrick Centre in the town centre, with St Patrick's grave at Down cathedral.  We also roll right the way through to Murlough and Newcastle and down to Carlingford bay.
South Down does indeed have it all.  We have the forest parks, hiking, world-class golf courses and tourist centres.  I am doing a good advertising job for the area.  The population in Northern Ireland is small, however.  We must be outward-looking, and I hope that we can adequately resource Tourism NI and charge it with bringing in visitors from these islands and beyond.  Our product is unique in Northern Ireland, and I do not need to rehearse it.  Unless we make the effort to reach out and sell our area, however, the return is going to be low.  I accept the maxim that you have to speculate to accumulate, and it is so true with tourism.  I hope that the Budget can direct much-needed additional funds to tourism sellers to equip them to do our area justice.
The impact that the tourism industry can have on our local economy is massive.  That is certainly the case in South Down, where so many jobs, businesses and households rely on the income from tourists.  If we cannot maximise that benefit, it is families in my area that will be impacted.
The Budget is for eye-watering amounts of money, and I know that Members from all sides will make their case for priorities, but I have focused on the few that are priorities for my constituents: health, education and tourism.  I hope that those can be reflected in the final out-turns to the Departments.  Northern Ireland can be better if the funds the Executive distribute are allocated and spent correctly.  However, I fear that this Budget will do little to achieve that.

Justin McNulty: I rise to speak specifically on how the Budget will affect our people: our businesses, our farmers, our healthcare users, our tradesmen and our newcomers.  Newry and Armagh is a great constituency.  However, things are not all positive.  There are constant threats to services in Daisy Hill in Newry.  The withdrawal of services in Armagh city is hitting our people hard.  Hard-working families, the vulnerable and the elderly are constantly being squeezed.  Our young people need jobs at home, and our education system needs fixed.  We need real investment in our roads, rail and communications infrastructure, and we need solutions to the problems facing our farmers and rural communities.
As a member of the Infrastructure Committee, I will highlight public transport.  Thousands of people in my constituency get in their car every morning and travel to Belfast because there is inadequate rail provision.  I know that many of those people would much prefer to use the train for their commute to work.  Over the past number of years, we have seen rail services between Belfast and Newry becoming less frequent and more expensive.  There are 46 trains from Portadown to Belfast every day and only 10 from Newry.  The last train for Portadown leaves Belfast at 11.00 pm; the last train for Newry leaves at 8.00 pm.  I have previously asked the Minister for Infrastructure what he intends to do to address that inequality in rail provision, and I repeat that call today.  Northern Ireland must have a modern rail infrastructure, and we must see the continued development of a modern railway system throughout the North and across the island.
A vibrant and equitable economy cannot operate without a modern road network.  Chronic underinvestment in the past means that Northern Ireland's road network is no longer fit for purpose.  The SDLP wants to see a roads strategy using 20 years' modelling and agreed in cooperation with the Dublin Government.  In the situation in which we now find ourselves, that cooperation is even more crucial.
Alongside delivering roads, the maintenance of our current roads is vital.  I also called on the Minister to prioritise rural road repairs.  He knows so well, being from a rural constituency, of the impact of dangerous driving conditions and the damage and danger that they cause.  Investment in road upgrades will continue to help to improve road safety and ensure access across the North.  So far, in my short time on the Committee, I have seen that the outlook is bleak.  We have heard about the 9% budget cut and the £1 billion backlog in investment.  The Minister and the departmental officials did not seem to have any suggestions about how to deal with that backlog other than trying to keep on top of it, which does not fill us with much confidence.  If that is the way in which the Department deals with issues such as road maintenance, we are right to be concerned.  How does it plan to deliver all of the A5 and A6, never mind the much-needed east link and north and west link roads in Armagh and the southern relief road in Newry?  Minister, can you tell me how much of the Northern Ireland Executive's Budget is match funded by the EU?
Moving back to my constituency and turning to health, I reiterate the words of my colleague Mark H Durkan: we need to spend money on health much more wisely, as opposed to just spending more.  Daisy Hill Hospital and its emergency department are vital resources for our community.  Recently, there have been discussions about staff shortages and the failure to fill publicly advertised posts.  Health trusts have collectively spent over £50 million on temporary staff alone.  They should focus on reducing that and recruiting permanent staff as a cost-saving measure.
Report after report on high waiting times, coupled with the recent Assembly debate on waiting times, highlights the need for urgent action.  By addressing those problems, the Minister can begin to tackle emergency room waiting times, which have spiralled out of control.  People in my constituency are angry because they feel that decisions about healthcare are made to save pennies rather than to save lives.  They do not want to travel further and longer for healthcare treatment or wait longer for consultations and essential treatments.
We have already seen the potential for cross-border initiatives with the new radiotherapy unit at Altnagelvin.  That is a pioneering project in terms of North/South cooperation, facilitated by our membership of the EU.  In Newry and Armagh, we hope that that type of relationship can be extended to other border communities to pool resources and expertise and help our people.  The question that the Finance Minister has to answer is this: how has Brexit impacted on our ability to expand services on a cross-border basis?
I live in a border constituency. An estimated 30,000 people cross the border every day, a large proportion of whom are from Newry and Armagh.  I have been out speaking with people, and last week's referendum result has left a sense of shock.  People are worried about the consequences for them.  The result has huge ramifications, not only for people in Newry and Armagh but for Ireland. I have spoken to our farmers in south Armagh, and they want to know if the single farm payment is guaranteed for the next two years.  They want to know if the export of live lamb to the South will continue.  They have huge concerns.  Minister, are you not worried about the tractors coming hurtling up the avenue because the farmers have not received their subsidies?  They will not be coming to see me; they will be coming to see the First Minister and they will be coming to see you.  Where is your plan?
People in our tourism industry are worried about the images we are sending out to the world as an outcome of last week's vote.  I have talked to our newcomers in Armagh city.  They say that nobody knows what is going on or what the future holds for them.  They are worried about travelling and their jobs.  Can you reassure them?  They want answers.
I have met industry in Newry city.  They are worried about their competitiveness.  Will there be tariffs?  They want answers.
What are the implications for Invest NI?  An outcome of Friday's decision is that access to market now has a big question mark over it.  Will Invest NI have no certainty for two and a half years?  What do they do now?  Do they just press the pause button?
I have spoken to our voluntary and charitable sector.  They have had sleepless nights.  How is your Budget linked to the charitable organisations?  They say that, without EU funding, they will not have jobs.  Can you reassure them?
I have spoken to our tradesmen, men who leave in their vans for Dublin every morning.  They are worried about the impact that Brexit will have on them.  Can you give them any comfort?
Many of our major stakeholders do not know, as of last Friday, the status of their budget.  The QUB cancer researchers, the aeronautical researchers and other higher education research departments rely heavily on EU funding. For us to remain competitive, we need a strong tertiary education system with strong research functions.  What reassurance can you give them?  What is your plan?
How relevant is your Budget now, given Friday's outcome?  Does it need to be rethought?  It is not my intention to catastrophise.  The tsunami has landed; we are where we are, and we need cool heads.  We are in the situation that we are in, and the First Minister's party proposed this.  We need to see leadership from her and from the Minister of Finance.  We need to see her plan.  This has so many implications across our society and across our Ireland.  On this island, 30 out of 32 counties want to remain part of the EU.  This outcome has disrupted relationships at best.
Our leadership has a duty to be conciliatory and not triumphalist.  Unionists need to reflect on the disuniting nature of this outcome.  For the Irish Republic to remain part of the EU, it must now join the Schengen agreement, which, inevitably, will lead to a hard border, but where?  The land border must move to the island of Britain.  This decision will have an impact on all our islands.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: I thank everyone who contributed.  I see that it has proved too much for the Chair of the Finance Committee because she left after 15 minutes, but I want to thank her and her Committee for granting accelerated passage for the Bill.  I will start at the end, as I am wont to, by dealing with Mr McNulty's points.  It is the first time that I have been blamed for Brexit; there is a first time for everything.
I want to give him advice for when people come to him to say that they are worried.  We had a small group of sixth-form pupils here today from Omagh who were very concerned, worried, fretful and trepidatious about the future.  The first thing that we have to do in showing the cool heads that the Member asked for is to assure everyone that we have a firm hand on the tiller.  There is chaos in London and there is absolute uncertainty and a lack of leadership.  It is clear from all sides in the aftershocks of Brexit that there is a lack of clarity in London about the way to proceed.  However, there is no lack of clarity in this House.  We differed on the vote before it happened and we still differ afterwards on its outcome and how it will proceed, but the one thing that we are united on is that we will act in the best interests of our people.
The Member mentioned newcomers, and they come not only from EU states but from other parts of the world.  They are anxious because of the tone of some of the debate.  The first thing that we should say is that we are here to protect the newcomers and that we respect them and will defend their right to be here.  We say to young people who are worried about being cut off from the beauty and bounty of Europe that we will insist that they remain at the heart of Europe.  We say to those in the border regions in particular, although it applies to Belfast as well, I can assure you, who fear being cut off from the rest of this island, that we will ensure that our destiny and that of the rest of this island is wedded together in the time ahead.
To those in receipt of European or Invest NI funding, who depend on INTERREG or transnational funding in Wales and in both parts of this island, we should say that it is our intention to ensure the continuity and success of their funding.  Do we know how this will shake out in the medium or long term?  We do not.  We were, of course, anxious and we resisted the policies of Mr Cameron, but I fear that his successors have even less of a clue about how to proceed with building jobs, especially in this part of the world.  Maybe they are experts in looking after the south-east or parts of London, but I fear that those who replace Mr Cameron will have even less regard, if that is possible, for the desires of our people to have good housing, sustainable jobs, and a good quality of life.
I spoke to the Special EU Programmes Body on Friday and I said that it has to be business as usual and that we cannot give in to fear.  The alternative is to sit on our hands and wait for the new Brexit ideologues in London to come forward with ideas.  We have to steady our ship — I missed parts of the Brexit debate — and send out word from everyone in the House that we are determined and resolved to act to safeguard the interests of all our people.
I will add one other thing.  Mr McNulty is a big fan of the railway network and wants it improved.  I am in favour of that as well.  I travelled by train from Dublin last week and we stopped in Newry, which has a wonderful train station.  I cannot remember the name of the Minister who ensured that it was built.  We stopped in Newry, and two ladies beside me from Bangor asked me whether Newry was in the North or South, presumably because they saw the bilingual signage.  I was able — I do not know whether it was with regret or not — to tell them that Newry remains in the North.  I am in favour of investment in all this infrastructure.  I think that my colleague Chris Hazzard will bring that forward in the time ahead.
Ms Pengelly has left us, but I have never heard as sunny a depiction of the future under Brexit as that which she outlined.  I do not know what she is on with regard to Brexit, but I think that a lot of people need it because Neil Gibson's Oxford Economics report, which was delivered on the watch of the previous Minister — he may not have commissioned it — said that, in every criterion and outcome, Brexit is bad for us.  Mr Gibson of Oxford Economics said that —

Nichola Mallon: Will the Minister give way?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: I will in just one minute, when I finish this.  He reckoned that Brexit was bad for our neighbours across the water and of course for the South, but he said that, on every index, Brexit would be worse for us because we share a land border with the South of Ireland, depend so much on manufacturing and rely on FDI.  Rather than having a sunny outlook, I have not heard even the advocates and those who said that we should vote "Leave" posit such a bright and positive future under Brexit.
I will give way.

Nichola Mallon: I very much appreciate the Minister's giving way.  I would like to get some clarity from him on the narrative that we are hearing a lot today about this joint strategy to protect the best interests of Northern Ireland.  Sinn Féin's position is very clearly that our best interests lie within Europe, and the DUP fundamentally believes that they are best served out of Europe.  Sinn Féin has an understanding and analysis of the impact of a Brexit vote that is fundamentally different from that of the DUP.  It would be really useful if we could get some light shed on what this joint strategy will look like, considering that you hold polar opposite views on nearly every issue to do with Europe.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: I thank the Member for her question.  Maybe she was not here when the First Minister spoke earlier and outlined that strategy.  In fact, I think that that common purpose does unite us, but let me just say again what I have said in the media several times:  in my view, the majority of people in the Six Counties voted to remain in Europe, and that vote should be respected and recognised.  I do not accept the right of anyone to drag us out of Europe.  I will stand by the best interests of the people here and make common purpose with anyone from any part of this House or elsewhere who wants to stand with me in doing that.
I think that I will leave Ms Pengelly's comments, since she has left us, except that she did mention the memorandum of understanding.  For other members on the Committee, we are still working on a memorandum of understanding about the Budget process.  Work is proceeding.  It is not proceeding as quickly as we might want it to, but I hope to have that memorandum of understanding in place.
It is good to be back at the dance hall with Mr Smith.  He is back where he was:  at the slow dance.  He was saying that no one else has a plan for the economy, but unfortunately he has no plan for the economy either.  He is now telling us that we have no plan post-Brexit, but he has no plan either.  What I would suggest on both counts is that he should come forward with his alternative plan for growing the economy and let us assess it and take a decision on whether it is a cogent plan or a plan which does not hold water, and let us and the people then vote on how sensible that plan is.  The Achilles heel of Mr Smith's argument is that I can say, hand on heart, that no one in my party voted for Brexit, but I can also say that I stood outside Botanic Primary School with a member of the Unionist Party who was canvassing and urging people to vote "Leave".  If you have some advice on how we should respond to Brexit, I suggest that you first speak to your own members who were telling people that it was in their interests.
Of course, the second fault line in Mr Smith's argument is that while he bemoans austerity — he certainly decries my attacks on austerity — his party supports it.  I have seen no evidence yet that he will oppose resolutely the austerity coming from London — the 4·5% decrease in our resource budget between now and 2021, or the cut in our budgets from 2010.  You cannot have your cake and eat it on this one, Mr Smith.
Either you need to tell us that you are opposed to austerity and will oppose it, or you have to admit that you accept that the Tories in their wisdom — mar dhea — have the right to assault and cut our budgets.
I absolutely stand over the outcome and processes of the June monitoring round, and I think that the public will endorse that.  Some people said that it was a June monitoring round in June, which, in itself, was praiseworthy.  Not only was it the fastest June monitoring round but it delivered over £170 million into services and needs, which our people were requesting.  If that is not a good way to do business and he wants to go back to horse-trading and stop-start, I am afraid that I am not an advocate of that.  Whether or not, of course, we have the same type of money in our budgets in October for the next monitoring round is another matter.
Other Members talked about the effect of Brexit, and Mr Farry touched on it.  This is a 2016-17 Budget, and it is my hope that it will not be affected by the Brexit vote.  That said, that should not be taken to mean that I do not think that the damaging effects of Brexit will not be felt immediately.  I think that they will be felt immediately.  A lot of decisions are being taken in business, and I am not going to relay conversations that I have had with other people, which perhaps would prove my point, because I do not think that this is the place to do it, but there are conversations taking place even day that indicate to me that the impact of Brexit will be immediate and will not be helpful, and I will not say any more than that.  So, you never know, the October monitoring round could be an attempt to minimise some of the damage of Brexit.  That said, I think that the budgets will hold.  There may be some extra money needed to help people to deal with the aftershock of Brexit.  If so, we will have to deal with that in the monitoring round, but I think that this Budget holds.
That said, there is no chance that we can proceed with our budgets for the period ahead as we had hoped to later in the year oblivious to Brexit.  Brexit is the most damaging, fundamental change that we have seen in our economic circumstances in 40 years.  It would be unwise, and I say this again in relation to corporation tax and all the other issues, for any of us to proceed ramstam into the future thinking that the plans that we had on Thursday are good enough for today.  So, let us take stock together, let us assess where we are and let us proceed confidently to protect our interests but not be naive about the huge damage, chaos and crisis that has been triggered by Brexit.
Ba mhaith liom buíochas a thabhairt do mo chomrádaí, John O’Dowd, as aird a tharraingt arís ar an dochar a rinneadh le linn na géarchéime eacnamaíochta a thosaigh in 2007.  I thank John O'Dowd for pointing out that many of our woes date back to the economic crash, and, in fact, the irony is that Brexit perhaps has its roots in the crash of 2007-08.  I look forward to looking at all the options ahead.  If that includes prudent borrowing, so be it.
The reform programme that he and I defend has been a success thus far.  Some £4·5 million was allocated in the Budget to take forward the programme during 2016-17, and, during 2016-17, the programme work will focus on undertaking feasibility studies to establish the full potential of each reform.  Our mission is to improve our services and to be more effective, but can we do it at a lower cost so that we can free money up for education, the economy and other matters?
Ms Hanna returned to the Budget that she does not like but does not have an alternative to.  She is not sure that the £1 billion that we had promised for health will be sustainable.  I share that.  It has been echoed by everyone in this House that money alone will not resolve the deep-seated problems in the health service.  Therefore, when we spend money in the time ahead and make sure that the health service has the financial resources that it needs, we are cognisant of that.  It is to the fore of our minds that money alone will not solve the problem.  I agree with that, but I say again that, if the SDLP or Ms Hanna have an alternative to this Budget, I would like to see it, and when we do see it, we can make up our mind on whether it is anything other than a wish list.
As the Minister of Finance, I state again, as I have stated many times, that I would like all the fiscal levers, not just corporation tax but income tax, air passenger duty and stamp duty.  I would like all those taxes.  The issue is what we do with them when we have them, and I stand behind that, even as we assess the landscape ahead.
Ms Hanna said that she opposes the Budget Bill because the Executive are not investing enough in our infrastructure and in childcare.  I think that you will find that our infrastructural investment will increase.  There have been years of unprecedented cutbacks in capital expenditure because of the Tory policies and the allocation in the spending settlement, but I think that you will find that infrastructure will be increased.  As for childcare, let us not forget the flagship projects.  I know that we have a Member who wanted to stop, I think, all seven flagship projects previously, but let us not forget the new women and children's hospital, which demonstrates our commitment to improving and building on our services to women and children.
Some Members mentioned working closely with our colleagues in Scotland and Wales.  I have met the Finance Minister for Scotland, Mr Mackay.  Some of us were calling him Mr Mackie, but I was informed recently that it is Mr Mackay.  I also met Minister Drakeford from Wales.  We have had one useful meeting.  I met each of those gentlemen.  We have a lot of issues in common, not least our belief that, when we speak together for 10 million people, the Treasury does listen.  However, our meetings took place pre-Brexit, and the urgent need to meet again is not lost on any of us.  I spoke to Mr Mackay on Friday.  The three Ministers will meet in Cardiff on 11 July, and, as you might expect, all the issues that we had on the table are now being relegated, and the exit from the European Union is being brought to the fore and will dominate our conversations.  I do not know whether Ms Hanna or someone else brought it up, but the Chancellor, George Osborne, requested that meeting.  That might give you an indication of the depth of the crisis because, for the last three years, he has been refusing to meet us.  It is essential that we meet Mr Osborne.  It is equally important to me that we meet the Finance Minister in the South, Mr Noonan, and Mr Donohoe, who handles public expenditure, because we need to make sure that those who are on the other side of the negotiating table with the 27 states not only understand where we are coming from but will defend, as Mr Farry said, the fact that a majority here voted to remain.  That is at the front and centre.

Christopher Stalford: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way.  The Minister outlined earlier that the Executive will work very closely to ensure the best possible outcomes following the vote in the European referendum.  He will be aware that the Finance Minister in Wales advocated a "Remain" vote but that the majority of Welsh people voted to leave.  Does he agree that, regardless of the position of the Government of Wales, the Finance Minister in his country will be doing his best to work for the benefit of the people of Wales and that that is what the Executive should do as well?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: I thank the Member for his question, and I look forward to bringing that up with the Minister from Wales when we meet shortly.
It pains me to say this, but Mr Farry speaks a lot of sense when he says that we need to reduce the cost of division, invest to save and make sure that, in the time ahead, regardless of what direction the economy goes in — hopefully, despite Brexit, it will be a forward direction — we invest in skills and investment.  He makes a good point about what will replace European funding, and I think that, in the last three years, it has been around £350 million per annum from Europe.  He will have noted that the Secretary of State, Ms Villiers, has refused point blank to give a guarantee that she will replace the moneys that were received under the SEUPB, the Horizon 2020 programme, INTERREG or the many other programmes.  While I agree that the Member has his finger on the pulse of many issues, he is wrong in saying that this is not a sustainable Budget and that we have made the wrong choices.  There are budget choices to be made, and, even in regard to the opportunity cost that he speaks of, we have made the right choices.
In relation to his particular interest, he will be aware that an additional £5 million was committed to the Department for the Economy in the Budget to contribute to the skills enhancement agenda.  He will also be aware that the previous Finance Minister left a "promissory note", as he called it, for £20 million, and we have honoured that.  I want to assure him that we are on one page when it comes to investing in skills and in higher and further education.
Mr Bell was still in ministerial mode and talked up our economy.  I agree with him about the great work that has been done, especially by our entrepreneurs, to create business.  We have a very talented workforce and people who are deeply entrepreneurial and want to build a successful society.  However, I have to say as well that we should not be blind to the crisis that is unfolding and the difficulties that we will face in the time ahead in making sure that international talent, especially from the European Union, wants to come here to work and live.  I endorse his comments about the great work done by our businesses.

Stephen Farry: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way.  It is an important point that builds on the comments of Jonathan Bell.  I pay tribute to the work that he has done, particularly in the Far East.  All three of us have done work in different capacities over the past five years to work for investment into Northern Ireland.  Will the Minister comment on his experience?  In all his work, has he ever come across a single business that advocated that Northern Ireland would be better off outside the European Union?
[Interruption.]

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: I believe that, in the trade, that is called a leading question.  Those are the difficulties that we face.  I know that he said that in jest, but the hardest job of all is the job of Alastair Hamilton, the CEO of Invest NI, and we wish him well in the time ahead in dealing with the particular predicament that he has been placed in by Brexit.
Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá faoi mo chomrádaí Declan Kearney —

Jonathan Bell: Will the Minister give way?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: Of course, yes.

Jonathan Bell: I wonder whether he will want to comment on some very positive news.  I think that we all understand that it is a very difficult job in Invest Northern Ireland, but it is one that has been done hugely successfully by Alastair Hamilton.  I understand that he said that he was talking to two Boston firms that were about to invest, and they were not nonplussed at all about the fact that Britain has voted for Brexit.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: Perhaps I should put on the record that I spoke to Alastair Hamilton on Friday and to his — I do not know whether it is his father — Simon Hamilton, the Minister.
[Laughter.]
I also spoke to the vice-president of the European Investment Bank and, as I said earlier, the directors of the SEUPB.  Everyone is determined to steady the ship, but no one is blind to the challenges ahead.
Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá faoi mo chomrádaí Declan Kearney, a labhair faoin bhuiséad. Thug sé le fios, ar ndóigh, gur laghdaíodh ar na Buiséid ó 2010.  Tá sin fíor.  Dúirt sé go bhfuil bealach fada le treabhadh againn sula mbeidh eacnamaíocht agus geilleagar láidir againn, agus aontaím leis sin.  Labhair sé go láidir in aghaidh na déine.  I welcome and thank my colleague and comrade Declan Kearney and commend him on his maiden speech.  He pointed out some valuable contextual points.  We talked about the crash earlier, but the DEL resource budget has been reducing since 2010.  Despite the success of many of the companies that we have attracted here, we remain a low-wage economy, and that is not acceptable to me.  The self-defeating ideology of austerity certainly undermined our growth in the past.
In all the debates — several times — Mr Attwood has invited me to make a statement to the Assembly on the Budget.  I can assure him again, as I have assured him previously, that the Budget (No. 2) Bill and my statement will stand.  If there are any changes to the block grant in the time ahead, I will return to the House with a statement in that regard.  However, the Budget (No. 2) Bill has been written into the Executive's agreed Budget for 2016-17.  There have been no changes to the block grant following the referendum, although it is early days, and we do not know what perils lie ahead.  I assure him and other Members that, if there any changes in circumstances, I will make a statement to the House.  I add the caveat that the job of preparing a Budget in September just got considerably more difficult.
I welcome the comments of Mr Colin McGrath.   I tried desperately to get the Health Minister, the Infrastructure Minister and the Education Minister on the phone.  He made strong points for his constituency.  I think the Education Minister was the only one who got my call and came down to the House.  I think they are strong points.  I visited South Down, recently.  You focused particularly on tourism.  I think South Down deserves a greater share of the tourism peace dividend.
I would like to see Ireland's Ancient East extended across the border.  It is bonkers that it stops at Dundalk.  If we could extend it, in conjunction with the Narrow Water bridge, I think we would let people enjoy the great treasures of south Down.  Tourism has created more jobs south of the border in the last four years than any other sector.  I met Niall Gibbons of Tourism Ireland in Dublin, last Thursday, I think, and we discussed how we could do more to attract more visitors north of the border.  We mentioned in particular south Down, and he has made a commitment to visit south Down in the near future.
The area that continues to give me some cause for worry — you touched on it — is the willingness of people to visit from the South of the country.  That is the responsibility of Tourism NI.  In the Budget, we provide £27 million for Tourism NI and, I think, around £10 million or £11 million for Tourism Ireland.  One of the many responsibilities of Tourism NI is attracting visitors from south of the border.  Those numbers have not been growing.  They give us all cause for concern.  I can assure you that in my role as Finance Minister — I am not responsible for tourism — I will be asking that we get more bang for our buck.  Terence Brannigan, chair of Tourism NI, was in earlier, and I know that that is his wish as well.  We need to grow the tourism numbers from south of the border.  In that respect, and to finish with Mr McGrath's comments, is Brexit helpful to that?  I will let you answer that yourself.  I am happy to pass on the issues on the Downe Hospital, and the other issues, or to have the Ministers pick them up, including the education issue.  The Minister is now here.
I started with Justin McNulty, and I will finish with him.  I know that he is unhappy with the Budget, but, in the round, do we have enough money?  Demand is infinite, and the amount of money available is finite.  In the Budget, we have made choices, and I stand by those choices.  Agriculture has received £200 million; Communities, £820 million; Economy, £814 million; Education, £2 billion; Finance, £141 million; Health, £4·7 billion; Infrastructure, £372 million; Justice, £1 billion; and the Executive Office, £62 million, with the vast majority of that to be redistributed to other organisations.  I believe that I present to the House a Budget that will meet our needs in the time ahead, even in this time of crisis and economic peril.
If I missed any Members or questions, I will be happy to address them if they write to me.  Ba mhaith an óráid a chríochnú.  I will bring my remarks to a close.  I believe that the Budget Bill is essential to provide our Departments with the legislative cover they need.  As I outlined in my opening speech, the decisions that we as an Administration take have wide-ranging and long-term consequences for everyone in this state.  I hope that all Members will keep that in mind and do what is right for the people we serve.  On that note, I commend to Members the Budget.

Danny Kennedy: Before we proceed to the Question, I advise Members that, as this is a Budget Bill, the motion requires cross-community support.
Question put.

The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 54; Noes 29
 AYES 
 NATIONALIST: 
 Ms Archibald, Mr Boylan, Ms Boyle, Ms Dillon, Ms Fearon, Mr Hazzard, Mr Kearney, Mr Lynch, Mr McAleer, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Mr McElduff, Mr McMullan, Mr Maskey, Mr Milne, Mr Murphy, Mr Ó Muilleoir, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Ms Seeley, Mr Sheehan
 UNIONIST: 
 Mr Anderson, Mr Bell, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mrs Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mr Douglas, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mr Frew, Mr Girvan, Mrs Hale, Mr Hamilton, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mrs Little Pengelly, Ms Lockhart, Mr Logan, Mr Lyons, Mr McCausland, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Lord Morrow, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Stalford, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Boylan, Mr Robinson
 NOES 
 NATIONALIST: 
 Ms S Bradley, Mr Durkan, Mr Eastwood, Ms Hanna, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McNulty, Mr McPhillips, Mr Mullan
 UNIONIST: 
 Mr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Beggs, Mr Butler, Mr Chambers, Mrs Dobson, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Palmer, Mr Smith, Mr Swann
 OTHER: 
 Mr Agnew, Ms Armstrong, Mr Dickson, Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Mr Lunn
 Tellers for the Noes: Mr Aiken, Mr McGrath
Total Votes83Total Ayes54[65.1%]Nationalist Votes32Nationalist Ayes22[68.8%]Unionist Votes45Unionist Ayes32[71.1%]Other Votes6Other Ayes0[0.0%]
Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):
That the Budget (No. 2) Bill [NIA Bill 1/16-21] do now pass.

Danny Kennedy: I advise Members that, at half-time, Italy were leading Spain 1-0.
I ask Members to take their ease while changes are made at the top Table.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McGlone] in the Chair)

Welfare Supplementary Payment (Loss of Disability Living Allowance) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016

Patsy McGlone: The next three motions are to approve statutory rules relating to welfare supplementary payments.  The Business Committee has agreed that there should be a single debate during which the Minister and Members should address all three motions.  I shall ask the Clerk to read the first motion and call on the Minister to move it.  The debate on all three motions will then begin.  When all who wish to speak have done so, I shall put the Question on the first motion.  The second motion will then be read into the record, and I will call on the Minister to move it.  The Question will then be put on that motion.  After the Question has been put on the second motion, the third motion will be read into the record, and I will call on the Minister to move it.  The Question will then be put on that motion.  If that is clear — I hope that it is — I shall proceed.
The Minister for Communities has written to the Speaker to indicate that he is not available to move the motions on the Order Paper in his name.  The Minister of Education has therefore agreed to move the motions on his behalf.

Peter Weir: I beg to move
That the draft Welfare Supplementary Payment (Loss of Disability Living Allowance) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 be approved.
The following motions stood in the Order Paper:
That the draft Welfare Supplementary Payment (Loss of Disability-Related Premiums) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 be approved.
That the draft Welfare Supplementary Payment (Loss of Carer Payments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 be approved.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the more observant Members of the House will see that I am not the Minister for Communities.  I have, however, received assurance from him that if there are any mistakes made this evening he will of course tender his resignation in the morning.
[Laughter.]
I seek the Assembly's approval for the Welfare Supplementary Payments Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016.  The regulations are being brought in under article 137 of the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015 and will make provision for mitigating changes to welfare benefits introduced under article 82 of the Order. The three draft statutory rules were approved by the Communities Committee on 16 June.
This is the second tranche of regulations to be made following publication of the welfare reform mitigations working group proposals.  The group advised on how the Executive should help the most vulnerable as a consequence of the introduction of changes to the welfare system.  I thank Professor Evason and her colleagues on the working group for the work completed in bringing forward recommendations to the Executive that were subsequently endorsed on 21 January.
I seek the Assembly's approval for three sets of regulations that will introduce mitigation payments to claimants impacted by the loss of disability living allowance (DLA), disability premiums and carer's payments.  The regulations will enable the Department for Communities to implement mitigation payments to claimants impacted by the introduction of the personal independence payment (PIP).  PIP was introduced to Northern Ireland on 20 June 2016 and will replace disability living allowance for working-age claimants who are aged between 16 and 64.
As there are different eligibility criteria for PIP, all existing DLA claimants of working age, of whom there are approximately 125,000 in Northern Ireland, will be required to claim and be reassessed for PIP.  The Department will notify all DLA working-age claimants when they are required to claim PIP.  Provided that claimants make their claim for PIP when requested to do so, they will continue to receive their DLA payments as normal through the reassessment process until four weeks after the eligibility for PIP has been determined.
The first set of regulations to be considered provide mitigation support to existing DLA claimants who are financially worse off following reassessment for PIP.  There are three categories where mitigation payments may be made under the Welfare Supplementary Payments Regulations for the loss of disability living allowance.  Two of those support claimants who have been refused PIP, and the third is available to claimants who are awarded PIP but at a reduced rate, compared with what they were receiving under DLA.  Existing DLA claimants who appeal to tribunal or, subsequently, to a Social Security Commissioner, after not qualifying for PIP on reassessment, will receive mitigation payments equal to the weekly rates of their DLA payments until the date that the Department is notified of the appeal process but not beyond 31 March 2020.
Secondly, claimants who qualify for PIP at a reduced rate and whose weekly loss is £10 or more will receive mitigation payments for up to one year but not beyond 31 March 2020.  The mitigation payments will be equal to 75% of the loss; that is, 75% of the difference in weekly benefit between the claimant's previous DLA payment and the new rate of payment for PIP.
Thirdly, claimants who do not qualify for PIP but are awarded between four and seven points under the PIP assessment criteria in either of the two components can, if they show that their disability is as a result of a conflict-related incident, qualify for a payment equivalent to the standard rate of either component, whichever is more advantageous.  That will be paid for up to one year but again not beyond 31 March 2020.  It is expected that most existing DLA claimants who have a conflict-related injury will successfully migrate from DLA to PIP.  In the event that someone with such an injury does not qualify for PIP, it is anticipated, in the first instance, that they will choose to avail themselves of mitigation payments under the appeal category.
Claimants may avail themselves of payments under only one of those three categories of the welfare supplementary payments for loss of disability living allowance at any time.
The regulations also provide for scenarios where PIP is subsequently awarded or where an existing award is changed and how this affects the mitigation payment.
Let me now turn to claimants in receipt of disability premiums.  Disability premiums, or elements, are additional payments that are made to claimants on income-related benefits or working tax credit who are also in receipt of DLA.  The welfare supplementary payments for loss of disability premiums will enable those claimants who lose entitlement to one or more of the disability premiums or the severe disability element of working tax credit as a result of being reassessed from DLA to PIP to receive mitigation payments to cover their loss for up to one year.  Eligible claimants must be in receipt of DLA and the relevant social security benefit or working tax credit on the date that they transition from DLA to PIP.
The third set of regulations relates to carers.  Claimants who currently receive a carer premium, carer's allowance, income support or an additional amount for caring in the state pension credit will experience a loss of benefit if the person whom they currently provide care for is reassessed from DLA to PIP and does not qualify for the daily living component of PIP.  In this scenario, as there would no longer be entitlement to a benefit paid for providing care, the carer would be negatively financially impacted.  The Evason working group recommended provision of a supplementary payment to those eligible who experience such a loss of benefit.  Following the introduction of PIP in Northern Ireland, carers impacted in this way will receive a mitigation payment equal to the value of the carer award lost for up to one year from the date that their entitlement ceases.  Payments to carers will be equal to the loss of the award incurred except for claimants receiving income support on the basis of providing care.  In this case, the payment will be equal to the standard rate of carer's allowance.
There will be some common provisions relating to all of the mitigation payments that I have outlined here today.  First, there will be a basic requirement that all claimants must be ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland and that they continue to reside here while payments are being made.  There will, however, be an exception made for claimants who are temporarily absent from Northern Ireland for a period of up to four weeks, or 13 weeks if the absence is for the purposes of receiving medical treatment.  In some cases, payment will not be made for periods of hospitalisation, care home residency and imprisonment.  Mitigation payments will be disregarded when considering a person's entitlement to social security benefits.
Her Majesty's Treasury has indicated that mitigation payments in respect of non-taxable benefits, such as income support, will not be taxed.  However, as carer's allowance is a taxable benefit, mitigation payments in respect of carer's allowance will be taxable.  Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has also agreed in principle that any mitigation payments that replace disregarded income, such as disability living allowance, will themselves be disregarded when calculating entitlement to tax credits.  In all cases, mitigation payments will be paid four weeks in arrears.
Claimants who become entitled to a mitigation payment after 1 April 2019 will receive mitigation payments from their entitlement date up to 31 March 2020, the end date of the mitigation scheme.  Hence, some claimants will receive mitigation payments for less than one full year.
Finally, further measures recommended by the working group to mitigate welfare reform are being prepared with a view to these being presented to the Executive in the autumn.

Colum Eastwood: The regulations that we are being asked to affirm today are the second tranche of regulations that provide the legislative basis for the schemes that underpin the recommendations of the welfare reform mitigations group.
For clarity, I will take each regulation in turn.  The Welfare Supplementary Payment (Loss of Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 2016 will provide welfare supplementary payments for three categories of claimant.  The first is where a claimant does not qualify for PIP.  In this case, a claimant continues to be paid a sum equal to their weekly DLA payment while the outcome of any appeal is heard or, indeed, beyond this should a further appeal of a tribunal decision be granted — to the Social Security Commissioners — but not beyond 31 March 2020.  This is the date to which mitigation funding is currently available.  It is worth noting that the scheme will not be available to new claimants from 20 June.
The second category is when claimants qualify for PIP but at a rate lower than their DLA payment.  The statutory rule simply implements the recommendation of the working group so that, when a person qualifies for PIP but their payment is reduced by £10 or more, they will get 75% of the loss paid to them but not beyond 31 March 2020.  If the reduction in payment, for example, is £20 a week, they will receive 75% of that, which is £15.  It should be noted that this payment is for up to one year; it is not guaranteed for one year in all circumstances.
The third category is when claimants score between four and seven points but their disability or illness is due to a conflict-related injury.  That arises from concerns that the working group had that the PIP assessment method might not fully capture the consequences for claimants in Northern Ireland who have conflict-related injury.  Under those circumstances, people will be awarded a further four points, bringing them up to at least eight points, which qualifies them for PIP.  Again, this payment is for up to one year but not beyond 31 March 2020, when funding for the scheme ends.
The Committee was informed that the Department fully expects most existing DLA claimants who have a conflict-related injury to migrate successfully from DLA to PIP.  It is also important to note that payments made under this scheme will not be taxable.  The Committee considered these regulations and took oral evidence from the Department, and it was content to recommend that the Assembly affirm them.
The second statutory rule is the Welfare Supplementary Payment (Loss of Disability-Related Premiums) Regulations 2016.  Many people who receive DLA also receive income-related premiums for that disability.  So if, as a result of reassessment to PIP, someone loses entitlement to one or more of those premiums, they will be eligible for a welfare supplementary payment.  The disability premiums that are subject to mitigation are disability premium, enhanced disability premium, severe disability premium or the severe disability element under working tax credit and an additional amount under state pension credit.  The payments will be equal to the amount of the disability premium or element that was lost as a direct result of a claimant's DLA to PIP reassessment.
The Committee was advised that the payment will generally be for no more than 12 months, with the exception that, when a person appeals the decision of their PIP reassessment, payment will continue until the appeal has concluded.  That period may also be less than 12 months if the payment begins after 1 April 2019.  Again, the scheme and, therefore, the payments end on 31 March 2020.  The Committee was content to recommend that the Assembly affirm these regulations.
The third element of this tranche of regulations relates to the Welfare Supplementary Payment (Loss of Carer Payments) Regulations 2016.  Currently, a person who provides care for someone who is ill or disabled can receive financial support from one of the following:  carer’s allowance, carer’s premium, income support or state pension credit.  When the person being cared for is reassessed and loses the daily living component of PIP, their carer will also be subject to a loss of benefit.  The regulations will ensure that carers impacted in that way will receive a mitigation payment for up to one year, and payment will be equal to the amount that they have lost.
The Committee was informed that there were two exceptions to that.  When a carer is receiving a carer’s allowance and a contribution-based benefit that is less than the carer’s allowance, the payment will be equal to the difference between the two.  When a carer is receiving income support and is also entitled to carer’s allowance, the payment will be equal to the standard weekly rate of carer's allowance.  Again, the payment will be for no more than 12 months.  However, the Committee was advised that, as with the existing benefits system, a change of circumstance will result in a reconsideration of the mitigation payment.  It is, therefore, possible, depending on the specific change of circumstances, that the mitigation payment could be stopped.
The Committee was content to recommend that the Assembly affirm these regulations.  Therefore, on behalf of the Committee, I recommend that the Assembly approve the three motions related to these regulations.

Andy Allen: The Ulster Unionist Party supports the mitigation package to support those who will be affected by welfare reform.  We support mitigation for the loss of disability allowance in Part 2, which provides 100% protection for those who appeal against the refusal of PIP; for the loss of disability allowance in Part 3, which provides 75% protection where PIP is awarded at a lower rate than DLA by at least £10 a week; for the loss of disability-related premiums; and for the loss of carers' payments.
I have my concerns about whether the company involved, Capita, will be able to deliver the sheer caseload timely and accurately.  It is essential that people have confidence in the system, so I welcome the assistance for those who decide to appeal.  The 75% protection will also ensure that people moving from one rate to another have time to change or adapt their circumstances.
We do not support the proposed mitigation for conflict-related injury cases, which would see perpetrators who set out to cause death and, indeed, who left many with disabilities receive the same mitigation package as innocent victims where PIP has been refused — equivalent to either the standard daily living or standard mobility component.  Although my party has repeatedly called for the needs of victims to be kept at the forefront of the reassessment process, many victims will feel only further aggrieved to see perpetrators of terrorist acts awarded an extra four points, no matter what the circumstances.  I urge the Minister to revisit his conscience.  How, with any integrity, can he ask the Assembly to approve that?  As such, we will not support the loss of disability living allowance regulations.  It is a shame, because I support most of what is in them.  However, I am not prepared to sit by as the DUP sets this precedent.  To be honest, I was shocked that the Minister and his party remained quiet when Professor Evason first proposed this.  However, I am shocked that it is now actively seeking its adoption.  I therefore call on the Minister not to seek approval of the first regulations before us and to bring them —

Christopher Stalford: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.  Is it in order for a Member to question the integrity of a Minister?

Patsy McGlone: I am not quite sure that that is a point of order, but we will reflect on it and get back to the Member.

Andy Allen: I thank the Member for that.  I urge the Minister not to seek approval of the first regulations and to bring them back with Part 4, relating to conflict-related injuries, significantly changed.  The Assembly must not set the precedent of rewarding terrorist violence.

Jonathan Bell: A lot of work has been undertaken on the work that Professor Evason took forward.  I pay tribute to her and specifically to the working group for the recommendations that we have.  When we go into a period of proper scrutiny of what has occurred, it will be evident what we have done for the people of Northern Ireland who are at the coalface, very often living hand to mouth.  What has occurred as a result of their devolved Assembly is that there are mitigation measures in place to carry them through what are some of the most difficult times.
The Committee Chair outlined, as did Minister Weir acting for Minister Givan, all the issues, but we want to look at the overall design of the new discretionary support scheme, the regulations that are there and what their purpose is, which is to provide the financial assistance for claimants who are in urgent financial need as a result of crisis or emergency.  We want that discretionary support administered by the Department for Communities.  Eligibility will be income-based, and the new scheme will be made available to working people on low incomes.  Following the consultation, the income threshold has been set at the national living wage rate, which is payable for a person over the age of 25 who is working 40 hours a week.  All claimants, whether working or non-working, will be subject to the threshold assessment.
We could go through and parse down in detail all of what was necessary, but the vital part of what we are here to do today is to protect the most vulnerable.  Our society can be measured by how we treat the most vulnerable.  The block grant was affected; decisions were taken in other Houses that had a direct impact on us.  However, the success of what we have been able to do is in seeing the people most affected and targeting limited resources — I think that many of us would want to do more — at the people who need them most.  We have done that with these pieces of work.

Fra McCann: I also support the passage of these regulations.  I start by commending and thanking the working group that put together the package.  Had it been left in political hands at that time, we would not have ended up with a package at all.  The fact that we brought in people with the expertise and knowledge about where this would have the biggest impact has led to us sitting with this package tonight.  I commend the group on the work that it has done.
As has already been said, this affects carers, people on DLA who are going onto PIPs and disability related premiums.  The last Member who spoke hit the nail on the head:  it is all about ensuring that the most vulnerable in our society are paid at a rate that allows them to deal with their disabilities, difficulties and problems.
I want to make one point.  The carers element begins only at 16.  I listened to a programme, a number of months ago, about child carers who have to look after parents.  It impacts on their education and their ability to provide a proper meal in their home.  At some stage, we need to come to terms with that and try to deal with it.
This emanates from the Fresh Start Agreement.  It is amazing that, tonight, we start to see the roll-out of over £500 million that was put aside by the Executive to deal with that.  It was heavily criticised, but it is jealously looked at by other regions.  The House has done a good service to people here through the passage of the regulations tonight.

Patsy McGlone: Before I call the Minister — forgive me; it is Mr Allister next — I have a little bit of technical advice.  Broadcasting has asked Members not to stand between microphones.  Otherwise, they may not be picked up properly.  We cannot have that.

Jim Allister: I will address the first regulation before the House, particularly Part 4, which introduces the most obnoxious and repulsive idea, which was referred to, quite properly, by Mr Allen, that, when it comes to topping up PIPs to guarantee the continuance of benefit, the perpetrator of a terrorist act who causes his disability by his own hand, is to be rewarded on a par with the innocent victim on whom he may have inflicted injury.  That is amoral.  It offends basic concepts of decency that someone who sets out to injure or kill others and, in the process, disables himself or herself should and will automatically, under these regulations, be treated in the same way as the innocent victim of that or any other terrorist incident.
I am astounded that a Minister from the DUP Benches is bringing forward such an obscene proposal.  The DUP, like many other unionists, since 2006 has rightly raised objections to the equating of perpetrator with innocent victim.  I do not think it has fought an election since 2006 when it has not proclaimed its opposition to that equating of perpetrator and victim.  I will quote but one of the DUP's manifestos — the 2009 European manifesto:
"The DUP has been clear and consistent that the perpetrator of an act of terrorism should not and must not be equated with the innocent victims of terrorism."
Yet that is precisely what this DUP-written regulation does.  Regulation 15 is very clear that the perpetrator of a violent incident gets the same uplift as the innocent victim of that or any other violent incident.  It did not have to be that way.  All the Minister had to add were a few words to the end of regulation 15(1) to the following effect: "provided that that person was not convicted of or involved in an offence arising from the violent incident".  That would have protected the integrity of the situation.
I heard a Member raise concerns about integrity.  Where is the integrity in saying, time without number, to the electorate that a clear and consistent stand will be taken against equating the perpetrator of the act of terrorism with the innocent victims of terrorism and then bringing to the House a regulation that does precisely that?  I am sure that many on those Benches who will tonight vote for this obscenity have met innocent victims from time to time. I have been present when groups have been met by multiple parties, including the DUP, and I have heard the avowal — the solemn pledge — that they would never equate perpetrator with victim.  Yet tonight, that is precisely what they stand ready to do.  Why?  Because getting their precious Fresh Start and keeping Sinn Féin happy were more important than keeping their  word to innocent victims.  That is the sad, chilling reality. That is what has brought the DUP to this position, where it is prepared to hole below the waterline all its pledges about never equating innocent victims with perpetrators.  In doing that, of course, they undercut entirely the laudable argument for amendment of the poisonous definition of victim in the 2006 Order.  If you can live with it to the point of implementing it in welfare reform, many will conclude that you are happy to live with it in every other dimension of its definition.  It is a sorry pass indeed.
When I challenged the Communities Minister about this at Question Time a couple of weeks ago, his pitiful answer was "In welfare we are blind to how you got your injury".  Not so, Mr Deputy Speaker; the regulations are not blind to how people got their injury.  There is no special treatment for the person who got their disability in a road traffic accident, but there is for the person who got their injury at their own hand through their self-inflicted perpetration of terror.  There is special treatment for him.  Away with the nonsense that, in welfare, the regulations are blind to how you came by your disability.  They are not.  They make a special case for those including the perpetrator.
It is no answer to say, "Ah, but most people covered by this will be innocent victims". Maybe, but there is a principle here.  It is a principle that could have been preserved by the simple addition of a few words to regulation 15(1) to exclude the perpetrator.  Sadly, it is not possible to amend the regulation at this stage in the House, or I would have sought to do so, but it is possible, in the name of integrity, to rediscover your conscience on the matter and not to press the obnoxious proposal in Part 4 at this time.  I make that plea.  I know that it will fall on deaf ears, as doing the deal that was done was more important than taking the stand of integrity on these issues.

Peter Weir: I thank all the Members who have taken part in the debate, both those who have welcomed the regulations and those who have opposed them.  They are all entitled to their position.  I thank the Committee on behalf of the Minister.  I suppose, in the words of Barry McGuigan, I thank Mr Eastwood for his contribution.  Indeed, the Committee looked at this in some detail.
I will deal with a few of the items that came up during the debate.  First of all, the Member noted that element 3 of the loss of disability allowance regulations, namely for victims of Troubles-related injury, would award an extra four points and would qualify them for PIP.  The extra four points do not qualify somebody for PIP; instead, it qualifies them for a payment at a rate equivalent to a standard PIP rate.  Mr Allen raised the issue of Troubles-related injuries.  First of all, the rationale given by Professor Evason in her report explained that, with regard to making specific provision, there was concern that the consequences for claimants with conflict-related injuries in Northern Ireland, particularly mental health issues, would not necessarily be fully captured by the new PIP payment.  It has also always been the case in the social security system, with regard to DLA, that the impact of the disability is looked at rather than what caused it.  I will come back to Mr Allen in a moment.
The definition of a victim of the Troubles obviously comes from the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006.  It was brought in under direct rule — much loved by the Member for North Antrim.  It is one that we have not been able to change since then; indeed, what is in the legislation reflects the legal position on that definition of "victim".  I wish that the definition was different, but, when this party brought legislation on that basis to the House, we were unable to get it through, so we were left with that.

Jim Allister: Will the Member give way?

Peter Weir: No; I have heard enough from you for one day, Mr Allister.

Jim Allister: I would like an answer.  You know that you could have changed the definition.

Peter Weir: With respect, it reflects the current law.

Jim Allister: You could have changed it.

Peter Weir: You seem to be talking from a sedentary position.  At least, to be fair, you have been consistent on the issue.
I will deal with one other issue in relation to that.  Mr Allen and the other Ulster Unionists are now deeply opposing it.  It is very interesting that that was not the position in Committee when no Member of the Ulster Unionist Party spoke on the issue, did not raise any questions on the issue, and did not vote against the proposal.  So, we seem to have a bit of a Damascene conversion here today.

Emma Pengelly: Will the Member give way?

Peter Weir: I will give way.

Emma Pengelly: Does the Member agree with me that this is particularly ironic, given that the erroneous definition of victim in the 2006 Order was brought in during David Trimble's reign as First Minister?  It was first mentioned in a consultation paper launched by him when he was First Minister.

Peter Weir: The genesis of it came, as you rightly said, during that period, and it was brought forward by a direct rule Minister in 2006.  So, it is perhaps a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted for the Ulster Unionists.
Turning to one other point that Mr Allen raised, which is the Capita PIP assessments, the Department has worked closely with Capita to ensure that there are sufficient disability assessors in place.  On the other aspects of this, it is also important that, when people are assessed, it is done in a timely, proper manner.  That is something that the Department will want to take forward.
In conclusion, these measures are unique to Northern Ireland and demonstrate the determination of the Executive to protect the most vulnerable in our society.  That puts us in a different position from the rest of the United Kingdom.  There will be further measures to mitigate welfare reform; those are being prepared and will be presented to the Executive in the autumn.
I thank Members for their interest in the regulations, even when they have opposed them.  I hope that they will support them to enable mitigation payments to be made to those affected by the introduction of the personal independence payment, including those in receipt of carer's allowance and disability premiums.  I commend the motion to the Assembly.
Question put.

The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 54; Noes 13
 AYES 
 Mr Agnew, Ms Archibald, Mr Bell, Mr Boylan, Ms Boyle, Ms P Bradley, Ms S Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mrs Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Ms Dillon, Mr Douglas, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mr Eastwood, Ms Fearon, Mr Frew, Mr Girvan, Mrs Hale, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hazzard, Mr Irwin, Mr Kearney, Mrs Little Pengelly, Ms Lockhart, Mr Logan, Mr Lynch, Mr Lyons, Mr McAleer, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Mr McCausland, Mr McElduff, Mr McGrath, Miss McIlveen, Mr McMullan, Mr Maskey, Mr Middleton, Mr Milne, Lord Morrow, Mr Murphy, Mr Ó Muilleoir, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr Robinson, Mr Ross, Ms Seeley, Mr Sheehan, Mr Stalford, Mr Storey, Mr Weir
 Tellers for the Ayes: Mr F McCann, Mr Robinson
 NOES 
Mr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beggs, Mr Butler, Mr Chambers, Mrs Dobson, Mr Kennedy, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Palmer, Mr Smith, Mr Swann
 Tellers for the Noes: Mr Aiken, Mr Allen

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:
That the draft Welfare Supplementary Payment (Loss of Disability Living Allowance) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 be approved.

Welfare Supplementary Payment (Loss of Disability-Related Premiums) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 — Welfare Supplementary Payment (Loss of Carer Payments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 — Discretionary Support Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016

Resolved:
That the draft Welfare Supplementary Payment (Loss of Disability-Related Premiums) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 be approved. — [Mr Weir (The Minister of Education).]
Resolved:
That the draft Welfare Supplementary Payment (Loss of Carer Payments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 be approved. — [Mr Weir (The Minister of Education).]

Patsy McGlone: I call on the Minister of Education, acting on behalf of the Minister for Communities, to move the motion.

Peter Weir: I beg to move
That the draft Discretionary Support Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 be approved.
I seek the Assembly’s approval for the Discretionary Support Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016.  The regulations are being brought in under articles 135 and 136(5) of the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015 and will make provision for the introduction of discretionary support in Northern Ireland.  The draft statutory rule was approved by the Committee for Communities on 16 June.  The regulations have been made following the publication of the welfare reform working group proposals on how the Executive should help the most vulnerable as a consequence of the introduction of changes to the welfare system.
In the past, the greater element of discretionary support has been delivered through the social fund in the form of community care grants and crisis loans.  The proposed repeal of the discretionary aspects of the social fund from 31 October 2016 will mean the removal of community care grants and crisis loans from the social fund, prompting the Department to develop a new provision for Northern Ireland.  Although discretionary support is not a replacement for the social fund, the regulations will enable the Department to replace the discretionary elements of the social fund with a new discretionary support scheme.  Discretionary support is unique to Northern Ireland and will seek to assist those on low incomes, either working or non-working people, when an extreme, exceptional or crisis situation arises, presenting a significant risk to the health, safety or well-being of either the person making the application or their immediate family.  Entitlement to discretionary support will be assessed against defined eligibility criteria, and, if the criteria are met, an interest-free loan and/or a non-repayable grant may be awarded.
Discretionary support awards will be in the form of cash payments.  The regulations permit payments in kind through either the direct provision of white goods or vouchers, but these are not currently planned.  However, the provision of white goods will be considered approximately 12 months after discretionary support is introduced.  To be entitled to discretionary support, a claimant and their partner must not be in receipt of an income, once permitted disregards have been taken into consideration, greater than the annual national living wage, which is currently £14,976 a year or £288 a week.  All claimants, whether working or non-working, will be subject to an income threshold assessment.  To qualify for discretionary support, a claimant must be ordinarily resident and present in Northern Ireland, and the current departmental residency tests will be applied.  Those qualifying for a discretionary support loan must also, prior to that loan being awarded, be in a position to repay the loan within 52 weeks.  That can be extended to 78 weeks in exceptional circumstances — for example, a larger washing machine being required in order to meet a medical need.  The change to 52 weeks will encourage greater financial responsibility, reduce long-term debt levels and assist with the recycling of discretionary support funding essential to the sustainability of the scheme.  To qualify for a discretionary support loan, a claimant must not only be in a position to repay that loan but they and their partner —

Patsy McGlone: Excuse me.  Will Members please remain seated during debates in the Chamber?

Peter Weir: Perhaps I should start again to make sure that everybody has heard this.
[Laughter.]
To be fair, the Chair has been suitably rapt with the tension since we started.
To qualify for a discretionary support loan, a claimant must not only be in a position to repay that loan, they, and their partner, should not have an outstanding debt with the Department of over £1,000.  However, should a claimant be disallowed discretionary support in the form of a loan because of an affordability or debt issue, they may be entitled to a one-off living expenses grant.  Only one discretionary grant and three discretionary support loans will be awarded in any 12-month period, except in the event of a disaster resulting in the loss of possessions or property — I will quiz Members on this later.
To qualify for a discretionary support loan, the need for assistance must have arisen in Northern Ireland and be satisfied in Northern Ireland.  Should a claimant be dissatisfied with the outcome of their application for discretionary support, there is provision for an internal review.  Should the claimant, following that review, remain dissatisfied with the decision, there will be provision for an external independent review by the discretionary support commissioner's office.  Discretionary support also seeks to assist those on low incomes to organise and maximise their limited incomes through ensuring access to appropriate information and advice.
The Assembly will be aware that the welfare supplementary payments regulations are being brought forward.  We wish, within the discretionary support regulations, before they are made, to refer to the supplementary payment regulations, the Armed Forces independence payments and personal independence payments.  These will be added to the schedule on disregards for income contained in the discretionary support regulations.

Colum Eastwood: I thank the Minister for the great detail in which he outlined the regulations.
When the Committee first considered the Department's proposal to make the regulations on 9 June 2016, it was content for the rule to be made.  Subsequently, when the statutory rule was brought before the Committee on 16 June, the Committee was content, subject to the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules, to recommend that it be affirmed by the Assembly.  The Examiner reported on the SR on 24 June and did not identify any issues.
The Committee welcomes discretionary support, as recommended by the working group on welfare mitigations led by Professor Evason.  The statutory rule introduces discretionary support provision to pay loans and grants to people in crisis, following the abolition of community care grants and crisis loans under article 76 of the Welfare Reform Order 2015.  The Committee notes that this is a temporary response aimed at softening the landing for the most vulnerable as a result of the reform of the welfare system here.  Critical to the success of discretionary support will be access to specialist information and advice services.
Those accessing discretionary funds are likely to require support in finding a more sustainable financial footing.  The Committee for Communities will seek assurances from the Department that a robust framework of independent advice, as recommended in Professor Evason's report, is in place as the welfare reform programme goes forward.
On behalf of the Committee, I recommend that the regulations be approved by the Assembly.

Andy Allen: The Ulster Unionist Party fully supports the discretionary support mitigation package.  It has an annual budget of £16 million over the next four years to provide repayable interest-free loans and non-repayable grants, with eligibility criteria specific to each.  They are aimed at providing assistance to help to alleviate exceptional and extreme crisis situations and to ensure that those facing the most extreme hardship as a result of adjustment to the social security system are supported in their efforts towards self-dependency, where access to discretionary support would help to avoid or reduce major risk or life-threatening circumstances.

Jonathan Bell: I do not want to reiterate what has been said, so I will keep my remarks brief.  We focus, with this new provision, on the overall objective of the current social fund:  providing financial assistance directly to claimants who find themselves in urgent need for a variety of reasons, including crisis and emergency.  It has already been outlined how people can become subject to the income threshold assessment and how the available income can be repaid.  Most critical is that the awards will be targeted on the basis that the individual's circumstances satisfy the eligibility conditions and criteria.  The regulations have my support.

Fra McCann: Like the last Member to speak, I will not rehash everything.  I just want to make a couple of comments.  Along with some of the other stuff that we have passed today, the discretionary fund is probably one of the most crucial elements in the whole package.  It deals with the most vulnerable and offers a safety net for them a number of times throughout the year.  It is welcome.  It is also welcome that it includes for the first time low earners, offering them the opportunity, at different times in their life, to tap into this fund.  I make the point that this is unique to the North and does not operate in any other region.  I thank the working group for the work it did on this.

Peter Weir: This has obviously had a slightly smoother introduction than the previous regulations.  On behalf of the Minister for Communities, I thank the Committee for Communities for the very positive way in which it has dealt with these regulations.  There has been a consensus arising out of Professor Evason's report on the issue.  I welcome the fact that the Members who have contributed to the debate from around the Chamber have been unanimously in favour of the regulations.
It is important to realise, as Fra McCann said, that discretionary support is quite often for the most vulnerable people.  When ploughing through the detail required in any social security regulations — there can be myriad rules on who qualifies in what circumstances — we need to remember, and this is why discretionary support is very helpful, that we are dealing with individuals who are quite often vulnerable and in very difficult circumstances.  I welcome the support for these regulations from across the Chamber.
These regulations enable the Department to implement the discretionary support scheme, meaning that low-income families, provided they meet the discretionary support criteria, can be considered for assistance in a crisis situation.  As indicated, it is a support system unique to Northern Ireland, and it demonstrates the commitment of this Assembly and our determination to protect the most vulnerable in our society.  Our efforts to do that put us ahead of anywhere else in the United Kingdom.  I thank Members for their interest in these regulations, and I hope that there will be support across the Chamber for them.  I commend this motion to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the draft Discretionary Support Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 be approved.

Welfare Supplementary Payment (Loss of Disability-Related Premiums) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 — Welfare Supplementary Payment (Loss of Carer Payments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 — Landlord Registration Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016

Patsy McGlone: I call Mr Peter Weir, the Minister of Education, acting on behalf of the Minister for Communities, to move the motion.

Peter Weir: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.  I beg to move
That the draft Landlord Registration Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 be approved.
These draft regulations are made under powers conferred by draft regulations laid before the Assembly under article 72(3) of the Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 for approval.  The draft statutory rule has been approved by the Committee for Communities.
There is a requirement to make an amendment to regulations 2 and 9 of the regulations as a result of the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015 and the Welfare Supplementary Payments Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 to allow disclosure of information by the landlord register to certain bodies, including authorised officers from the Department for Communities for the purposes of the administration of welfare supplementary payments paid in respect of the application of the benefit cap and/or the administration of the housing element of universal credit.
The reason for the amendment to the regulations is to streamline the payments process of the administration of the welfare supplementary payments paid in respect of the application of the benefit cap and the housing element of universal credit.
The benefit cap will restrict the total amount of benefits paid to a household to within designated limits.  Mitigation support will be provided to families who are receiving more than £26,000 per year, providing they have been continuously in receipt of any combination of the welfare benefits that contribute towards the calculation of the cap, from 31 May 2016 until the point at which they are impacted by the cap.
In all cases, mitigation payments and the housing element of universal credit, when introduced, will be paid four weekly in arrears to the same recipient as the existing housing benefit award.  That reflects the existing payment frequency of the vast majority of housing benefit payments made to private landlords.
There will be a requirement for a private landlord and the property to be registered with the landlord register before mitigation payments in relation to the benefit cap or the housing element of universal credit is paid directly to a landlord.  If a landlord or property is not registered with the scheme, the payment will be paid directly to the claimant.  If a landlord is not registered, the Department for Communities staff administering mitigation payments and universal credit will be required to notify the council to take enforcement action against the landlord for non-compliance with the law.  That will also help to ensure that money paid in relation to housing costs will be protected.
The amendment to the Landlord Registration Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 will allow authorised officers within the Department for Communities to have access to the landlord registration scheme information to confirm that the landlord is registered with the scheme before payments can be made directly to the landlord.  Without the change, the Department for Communities staff would have the same access to the system as the public, which would make the administration process very cumbersome, as access to landlord information is very limited in this circumstance.
The amendment to the regulations will also ensure that access to the landlord registration scheme information by authorised officers from the Department for Communities will be controlled by the landlord registrar to ensure that there are no breaches of data protection.

Colum Eastwood: The Committee for Communities first considered the Department's proposal on 16 June 2016 to make the Landlord Registration Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 and was content for the rule to be made.
The Committee noted that there is a requirement to amend the 2014 regulation as a result of the Welfare Reform Order 2015 and the Welfare Supplementary Payments Regulations 2016.  That is simply to allow the landlord registrar to disclose information to authorised officers from the Department for Communities for administrative purposes relating to welfare supplementary payments.
When the statutory rule was subsequently brought before the Committee on 23 June, the Committee was content, subject to the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules, to recommend that it be affirmed by the Assembly.  Members were, however, advised at the meeting that there had been issues with the drafting of the regulations and were provided with an amended version at the beginning of the meeting.  Those were the regulations the Committee considered and agreed upon, subject to the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules.  However, the regulations the Committee considered were subsequently withdrawn by the Department, again due to drafting issues.  Those were replaced by the regulations before the House today.
Unfortunately, that means that the Committee has not actually considered these particular regulations, albeit that the Examiner of Statutory Rules has considered them and has not identified any issues and that we are assured by officials that the policy intent has not changed.  The Minister will be aware that the Committee is likely to consider hundreds of statutory rules over the mandate and that adherence to proper procedure on subordinate legislation is essential.  He can maybe pass that on to Minister Givan.
Perhaps the Minister can give his assurances, and those of Minister Givan, that, as the different elements of former Departments become embedded into a new cohesive Department, this will be given due attention.  In addition, maybe the Minister can again assure the House that the policy intent has not changed, so Members can have confidence in the regulations before them today.

Fra McCann: I do not want to rehash what has been said.  I just want to make one point.  There was a debate on landlord registration here last week, and we emphasised the need to go for full registration.  This statutory rule points out that the only landlords who will receive the payments will be those on the register.  I ask the Department to keep an eye on that, because there are substantial amounts of people in landlords' houses who are not on the register.  We need to keep our eye on this having an impact outside what was intended, and people being evicted from houses because they do not have the money.

Peter Weir: I thank Members for their focused and succinct contributions.  Obviously I appreciate that the Committee has not had a chance to look at the detail of this because of the circumstances, and I am sure that that will be rectified.  However, I am assured by officials that the policy intent has not shifted from the previous position.
The regulations will enable authorised officers within the Department for Communities to have access to the landlord registration scheme information to confirm that a landlord is registered with the scheme before mitigation payments in the application of the benefit cap and the housing element of universal credit can be made directly to the landlord.  It will streamline the administration process and allow staff administering the payments to notify local councils to take enforcement action against landlords who have not registered with the scheme.  It will also ensure that public money paid out in respect of housing costs is being protected.
I thank Members for their interest in these regulations.  I hope that they will support them to help smooth the administration process for the mitigation payments to be made to vulnerable people affected by the benefit cap and when universal credit is implemented in full.  It will ensure that private landlords who have not registered with the landlord registration scheme will comply with the law and register.  I commend the motion to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the draft Landlord Registration Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 be approved.

Welfare Supplementary Payment (Loss of Disability-Related Premiums) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 — Welfare Supplementary Payment (Loss of Carer Payments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 — Draft Renewables Obligation Closure (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2016

Patsy McGlone: Members will be aware that this item was added to the Order Paper after last week's Business Committee meeting and that a revised Order Paper was issued.  I hope that, as a courtesy to the House, the Minister will give a full explanation for the late tabling of this legislation.

Simon Hamilton: I beg to move
That the draft Renewables Obligation Closure (No.2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2016 be approved.
This statutory rule is being made under powers contained in the Energy (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which prescribes that this order must be laid in draft for approval by affirmative resolution of the Assembly.  The Northern Ireland renewables obligation (NIRO) has been the main support mechanism for incentivising renewable electricity generation in Northern Ireland since 2005.  The NIRO has been instrumental in increasing renewable deployment in Northern Ireland from just 3% renewable electricity consumption in 2005 to just over 25% today.  This significantly exceeded the previous Executive's ambitious Programme for Government target of having one fifth of our electricity generated from renewable sources by 2015.  This is a tremendous achievement for a region of our size and, with the amount of renewable electricity in the pipeline, it is anticipated that renewable electricity consumption could rise to as much as 30% by 2020.  I take this opportunity to commend the renewables industry and electricity infrastructure providers on helping us to reach this impressive figure.
I now move on to the business that is before us.  In March of last year, the former Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment issued a consultation on the proposed closure of the NIRO.  This resulted in closure of the NIRO to non-wind technologies in autumn 2015.  On 30 September 2015, a further consultation was issued on closure for onshore wind projects of all sizes from 1 April 2016.  This followed similar announcements in Great Britain.  Responses to the consultation raised a number of valid arguments that there are differences between the large- and small-scale wind industries and that the two should not be treated in the same manner.  In acknowledging these differences, and in order to provide legislative certainty, the NIRO closed to large-scale onshore wind on 1 April 2016.
A further supplementary consultation on NIRO closure to small-scale onshore wind was issued on 24 March and closed on 9 May.
The consultation proposed three options for closure: 30 June 2016, 30 September 2016 or 31 March 2017.  In addition to and in line with the provisions for large-scale onshore wind, the consultation proposed exceptions to closure in the form of grace periods for projects that could meet certain specific criteria.
All the closure options were set against the backdrop of the Department of Energy and Climate Change taking powers in the Energy Act to make regulations restricting the tradeability of Northern Ireland renewables obligation certificates (NIROCs).  Ultimately, that means that GB suppliers could not use NIROCs to meet their renewables obligation.  Subsequently, the market for such non-redeemable NIROCs would be limited to Northern Ireland.
Whilst the exact impact of that is hard, if not impossible, to predict with any certainty, it could destabilise the entire NIROC market.  The most likely impact is a reduction in the value of NIROCs and hence the viability of renewables projects, both new and existing and wind and non-wind.  In considering the options for closure, I have to be mindful of that threat; indeed, such is the magnitude of that potential threat to the renewable electricity sector in Northern Ireland that I felt it necessary to bring forward this legislation at short notice to be debated before the summer recess.  I am grateful to the Speaker and the House for allowing me to bring it forward today at short notice.
Some 126 responses were received from a range of stakeholders, including members of the public, independent generators, developers, trade associations, energy suppliers and non-governmental organisations.  I thank everyone who took the time to respond.  Over 93% of those who indicated a preference chose closure on 30 June 2016, 1% chose 30 September 2016 and 6% chose 31 March next year.  A number of responses were critical of subsidies for onshore wind in general.
In light of the overwhelming support to close as soon as possible and in order to reduce the risk of DECC enacting the backstop power, I have decided that the NIRO should close to new small-scale onshore wind-generating stations on 30 June 2016, in line with the minded position in the consultation proposals.  That means that projects that can demonstrate that they have an accepted grid connection offer, relevant planning permission and evidence of land rights as of 30 September 2015 will be able to accredit their stations up to 31 March 2017.  In some cases, if projects can meet further grace period eligibility criteria, they can seek accreditation up until 31 March 2019.
I listened to stakeholder concerns about the impact on investor confidence.  Therefore, the legislation includes an investment-freezing grace period for projects that can demonstrate that they have been unable to secure financial investment in the period prior to the legislation being in place.
The proposed closure order will provide the legislative certainty that small-scale onshore wind developers require and will reduce the potential for DECC to enact the backstop power.  That will hopefully enable those projects to proceed to deployment, further increasing the amount of renewable electricity generation in Northern Ireland.

Conor Murphy: The Committee was first briefed on the closure of the NIRO to small-scale onshore wind at its meeting on 8 June.  We would have expected to see an SL1 the following week so that the Committee could fulfil its proper scrutiny function.  However, it was not until the evening of 21 June that the Committee received the SL1 and the statutory rule, with the request that the Committee consider and approve both at its meeting the following day.
The Committee agreed but did so with some degree of protest and annoyance that our ability to properly scrutinise matters was not facilitated for us on this occasion.  We were aware of the timescales involved in the issue, and we made it clear to the Department's officials that that was not an acceptable way of doing business and that we, as a new Committee, did not consider it a precedent for how we would deal with departmental matters.  We understood the timescales involved and the issues in relation to the non-closure of the NIRO by 30 June in terms of the Department of Energy and Climate Change in London and the penalties that it might apply.
We were also aware that, as the Minister outlined, the vast majority of consultants were agreeable to and accepted the early closure date.  For those reasons, the Committee did deal with the rule, albeit in haste, after it was forced on it.
On behalf of the Committee for the Economy, I support the motion to approve the statutory rule.

Steve Aiken: I, too, support the motion and echo the words of the Chairman of the Committee.  I also commend the renewable energy industry for the great work that it has been doing over the past 10 to 15 years to get to where it has got to at the moment, particularly as it moved forward to help support Northern industry.
I echo the concerns that we have about the delay in bringing the SL and SR to the Committee.  Concerns were expressed by industry, particularly from the likes of the Ulster Farmers' Union, directly to the Committee and to various MLAs.  In future, we need to work together more closely and much quicker to make sure that those issues do not arise again.
The final point that I will make is about the critical importance of the energy sector moving forward.  We have energy market reform coming up, and one of the things that we need to be able to do, particularly in these turbulent and unsettling times, is to ensure the security, reliability and price of the electricity supply to the consumer in Northern Ireland.  I urge the Minister to make sure that the Department works very closely with the Committee early to make sure that we are fully aware of the issues as they come forward.

Gordon Dunne: I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak.  On the Enterprise Committee in the previous mandate, an extensive amount of work was carried out on this matter and on the renewables sector as a whole, as you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker.
There is no doubt that the renewables sector in Northern Ireland has progressed over the past decade, from a mere 3% renewable energy consumption in 2005 to over 25% renewable energy consumption today.  The renewables sector in Northern Ireland requires certainty on the way forward, and I believe that this closure today provides it with that much-needed level of certainty and clarity.  Following the change of policy on renewables by the Conservative Government, and with DECC's stance on renewables, the Department for the Economy has been left with very few options.  If the Executive were to extend the date of closure, we would be putting at risk the socialisation of the cost of existing renewable projects in Northern Ireland.  It would also increase the risk of DECC enacting the backstop power, which would have severe consequences for our renewables sector, including its ability to trade surplus Northern Ireland ROCs in the GB market.  That would be a significant loss to the sector, as a significant surplus is traded regularly outside of Northern Ireland.  Considerable consultation, involving formal and informal meetings with the former Enterprise Committee and the Department has taken place, and the vast majority of those consulted now see merit in the closure.  I therefore support the closure of the NIRO.

Sinead Bradley: The Minister has given us quite a concise backdrop to the events.  It is not my intention to repeat that or the contributions made by others, but, as a new Member and as a member of the Committee for the Economy, I am concerned at the process used in bringing the order forward.
This is the timeline.  The consultation closed on 9 May.  Mr Simon Hamilton was elevated to the position of Minister for the Economy on 25 May, and I am sure that, in his initial brief, it would have been brought to his attention that the Energy Bill was granted Royal Assent on 12 May.  The Minister described that as a serious threat, and I agree.  Understandably, stakeholders in Northern Ireland, nervous of the consequence of the powers being exercised, were eager to see that this matter was managed, and managed early.  I have spoken to some of those stakeholders.  Option 1, which has met with the Minister's approval, was described by one stakeholder as being the "best of a bad lot".
Given that backdrop, I fully understand the Minister's eagerness to bring forward a draft order ahead of summer recess.  What does not sit comfortably with me is the process used to do it.  It would be remiss of me not to make the House aware of my dissatisfaction, which I expressed in Committee.  The matter should have been conducted in a much more transparent and democratic way.  Four weeks after taking up office, the Minister sent officials to the Committee to do what I can only describe as wafting in front of us an SL1 and SR as an additional item to an already full agenda.  In fact, the email requesting that the additional agenda item of the SL1 and SR be included was described by Department officials as a highly unusual request at very short notice.  That was explained away, given the urgent need to give stakeholders certainty, which is a point that I do not disagree with.  Having said that, I made my dissatisfaction known to the Committee.  It was to my disappointment that the Chair of the Committee and others did not take up my offer of calling an extra meeting where we could discuss the matter further; he was content to sit with his partners in government.
I cannot and will not let the moment pass without expressing my concern.  Whilst I welcome the stability offered to stakeholders in bringing this to the House, it should be clearly placed on record that that is not a way to do business.  The Committee should not be reduced to rubber-stamping, with a nod and a wink, such important legislation.

Simon Hamilton: I thank everybody who contributed to the debate this evening.  I particularly thank the Chair and Committee for their support.  I accept the point made by the Chair and other contributors to the short debate this evening around the time given to the Committee to scrutinise the legislation.  As the Chair and Mr Dunne pointed out, the previous ETI Committee had lots of familiarity with the issue.  Much of that knowledge then transferred to the new Economy Committee.
I do not accept the point made by Ms Bradley that the process, imperfect as it was, which I accept, is, in some way, anti-democratic.  The Member had an opportunity in Committee to express her view in a democratic fashion; indeed, she has also had that opportunity this evening, so I do not accept that criticism.  However, I accept the points that have been made around the process leading to us being here this evening.  I thank the Committee for nonetheless favourably considering the legislation.  I put my hands up and accept responsibility for the delay that has taken place.  Given the seriousness of the issue, which, again, was a point made by many Members, including those who criticised the delay in bringing this forward, I did what I thought was appropriate: I took the time, as a new Minister, to look at the legislation carefully and consider all the options that had been consulted on.  I assure the House and, importantly, the Chair and Committee that this is not a way in which I intend to do business with the Committee in the future.  It is not some sort of precedent that I want to set.  It was an exceptional way of doing business in what were pressing circumstances, which is a point that has been made.
The proposed order will provide the legislative certainty that small-scale onshore wind developers require and will limit the risk of the Department of Energy and Climate Change using its backstop power, which I commented on earlier.  Looking to the future beyond NIRO, I want to turn my attention to a new policy approach to renewable energy in the context of a refocused strategic energy framework. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the draft Renewables Obligation Closure (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2016 be approved.
Adjourned at 8.04 pm.